JUDGMENT :

This First Appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the “M.V. Act”, for short), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (“MACT Pune”, for short) in MACP No.437 of 2015, dated 20th August, 2019, primarily on the ground that the Tribunal erred in considering the income tax return of the deceased filed after his death.

2. The brief facts are that the deceased Jitendra Hiraral Pawar was the husband of the Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondents No.2 and 3. The deceased on the day of accident was travelling with his friend Madanlal Parmar in his friend’s Swift Car bearing registration No.MH–12–EG–3208 towards, which vehicle was insured with the Appellant insurance company, when at about 05:30 p.m. on Mumbai–Pune express highway near village Bharangaon, the driver of the swift vehicle lost control, crossed the divider and dashed into another car bearing No.MH–12–KT–6311 which was coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident, Mr.Jitendra Pawar sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to them. Offence under C.R.No.42 of 2015, was registered against the car driver in which the deceased was travelling under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) holding him responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has observed that the evidence leading to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle which was insured by the Appellant insurance company was driving the car rashly and negligently has not been challenged seriously in the cross–examination, and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company is more or less undisputed. It is also observed by the Tribunal that perusal of the police papers also reveals that the accident took place due to the rash and negligence act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offence registered against the driver of offending vehicle corroborates the evidence given by the first Respondent, widow of the deceased. The Post-mortem report also suggests that the death occurred due to hemorrhagic shock due to polytrauma after the accident. The Tribunal has, therefore, concluded that the claimants prove that the deceased Jitendra Pawar died in the motor vehicle accident caused on 13th April, 2015 at about 5:30 p.m. on Mumbai–Pune express way by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Swift Car bearing registration No. MH–12–EG–3208, in which the deceased was travelling.

3. The aforesaid facts, as mentioned above are not in dispute. The issue that the Appellant insurance company is primarily aggrieved is by the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. It is being argued by Ms.Mital, learned counsel for the Appellant–insurance company that there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the fixed income of the deceased; that the last income tax return of the deceased, relied upon by the claimants was furnished after the death of Mr.Pawar and the amount is excessively high. According to her, since there is no fixed income, a notional income of Rs.5,000/- to 7,000/-, can be considered. On the other hand Mr.Mahadik, learned counsel for the Respondent Claimants would submit that the deceased was doing seasonal business and his income tax returns filed after his death have been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

4. I have heard learned counsel and with their able assistance perused the papers and proceedings and considered the rival contentions.

5. Before proceeding further and in order to appreciate the limited controversy at hand, it would be useful to quote paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Judgment dated 20th August, 2019, passed by the Member, MACT, Pune, as under:

“14. This takes me to Income Tax Returns filed below Exh.32 and 33. From perusal of Income Tax Returns for the period 2013–2014 it can be seen that income from business was shown Rs.1,25,750/-. Similarly, the Income Tax Returns for the period 2014–2015 shows income from bus