The court held that income tax returns are reliable evidence of a deceased's income for the purpose of assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

J. Bhattacharya, Mrinal Kanti Sinha, JJ.

This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Judge. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 6th Court at Alipur in M.A.C. Case No. 7 of 2008, at the instance of the claimants-appellants. The appellants' application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed on contest against the insurance company and ex parte against the rest. The learned Tribunal held that the son of the appellants died in the motor accident on 9.9.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB 19-A 4259 by the driver. Though the claimants claimed Rs. 9,00,000 towards compensation for the loss of their son in the said accident but the learned Tribunal allowed the claimants' claim to the extent of Rs. 3,88,500 together with simple interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization thereof.

2. Appellants are aggrieved as their entire claim was not allowed. The appellants claimed the said compensation amount by contending that their son used to earn Rs. 9,000 per month from his business. At the time of his death their son was aged about 25 years.

3. Learned Tribunal, while computing the compensation amount payable to the claimants disbelieved the claimants' claim regarding their son's income of Rs. 9,000 per month. The learned Tribunal, in fact, computed the compensation amount by accepting the earnings of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 per month.

4. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Tribunal was justified in computing the compensation amount payable to the claimants on the basis of the presumption regarding deceased's income of Rs. 6,000 per month.

5. In support of the appellants' claim for their son's income of Rs. 9,000 per month, the appellants produced the income tax return for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Both these returns were marked exhibits on proof thereof. It appears from Exh. 8, being the income tax return for the year 2006-2007, that the deceased himself declared his income for the said assessment year as Rs. 96,000 and odd. The other return being Exh. 10 for the assessment year 2007-2008 shows that the deceased declared his income for the said assessment year as Rs. 98,000 and odd. Though it is true that the balance-sheet relating to the profit and loss of the business of the deceased was not submitted but we can safely presume that the deceased who was a businessman did not declare inflated income in his tax return, as normally a businessman and/or a professional declares lesser amount of their income in his/her income tax return by concealing their actual income for reducing their tax liability.

6. As such, for the purpose of assessment of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, we can safely proceed on the basis of the income disclosed by the deceased in his income tax return as his actual income for those assessment years. Thus, we hold that the income of the deceased for the year immediately before his death was not less than Rs. 8,000 per month. If that be so, then his annual income should have been assessed at Rs. 96,000. Since the deceased was a bachelor, we, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that 50 per cent of the total income will be deducted from the total income of the deceased on account of his personal and living expenses. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the dependant was Rs. 48,000.

7. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that considering the future prospects of the deceased, 30 per cent of his total income should be added for computing the compensation amount payable to the claimants. In support of such submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421