JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 9^th July 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment and award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Nashik, whereby the Applicants/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 (Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein) have been awarded an amount of Rs. 77,27,864/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., inclusive of No-Fault Liability (NFL) from the date of filing of the MACT Petition/Application till realization.

2. Briefly, the facts are as follows:-

i. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are related to the deceased Hujefa Ejaj Anjum Usmani (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”), who died on account of a motor vehicular accident at the age of 31 years. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the Deceased, Respondent No. 2 is the daughter of the Deceased, and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of the Deceased.

ii. On 21^st July 2021, the Deceased was traveling by Skoda car from Mumbai to Nashik. At that time, the driver of Primpur Bombay Roadways, i.e.. Respondent No. 5, drove truck No. NL-01-AA-1248 from Nashik to Mumbai on Mumbai Agra Road, Wadivarhe Shivar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending truck’) in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed into the car of the Deceased, which resulted in the death of the Deceased.

iii. CR No. 338/2021 under Sections 304(A), 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) was registered against the driver of the offending truck. The offending truck was owned by Respondent No. 5, and had been insured with the Appellant.

iv. On 18^th October 2021, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed MACP No. 865/2021 before the MACT under Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the Deceased, from the date of the application till realization.

v. The impugned judgment and award was passed on the aforesaid MACP No. 865 of 2021 in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, awarding a sum of Rs. 77,27,864/- inclusive of NFL amount along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the application/petition till realization of the entire awarded amount, to be jointly and severally payable by the Appellant and Respondent No. 5 in the present Appeal.

3. It is in the backdrop of the above facts that I proceed to decide the present Appeal.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Mr. Gatne, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and award has been passed without appreciating the facts of the case and the law, and therefore the quantum of compensation which has been awarded by way of the aforesaid impugned judgment and award is excessive and arbitrary. He has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, which had been taken as the income of the Deceased on the basis of the income tax return (ITR) filed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is an erroneous basis on which MACT has awarded the compensation to the heirs of the Deceased, i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. He has vehemently submitted that through a series of judgments rendered in the context of MACT proceedings, it is an accepted legal position that when it comes to evaluating a person’s business income, the same has to be taken on an average basis, based on at least the preceding three years’ income, and only a solitary ITR cannot be made the basis to determine the gross income of the Deceased. Mr. Gatne has also challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground that interest on future income has been wrongly granted to the heirs of the Deceased. In support of the above submission, he has sought to place reliance on the decision of this court in Smt. Kalpana Gavali vs. MSRTC, 2023 SCC OnLiine Bom 2040.

6. Mr. Gatne further submitted that unlike salaried income, which can be determined with reasonable certainty on the basis of fixed and ascertainable parameters, business income is inherently variable and fluctuates depending upon the performance of the business. He contended that