IMPORTANT POINT
Income tax returns are essential for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, and future prospects should be calculated at 40% for self-employed individuals under 40.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. Four legal heirs of deceased Santosh Gope filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol being MAC Case No.40/2016, claiming an award of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest whereby the aforesaid deceased expired due to a road traffic accident on 11.01.2013.

2. The offending vehicle, a truck bearing Registration No. WB-37C-6511 hit the aforesaid deceased approaching in a rash and negligent manner near Majia High School in front of Sanchit Gope’s tea stall on NH-60.

3. Consequently, the victim was declared to have expired at Bankura Medical College and Hospital.

4. Subsequently, based on a written complaint, Mejia P.S. Case No. 20/2014 dated 14.03.2014 under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the driver of the offending truck as aforesaid.

5. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Court to contest the MAC case No.40/2016 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol.

6. The respondent, the New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. contested the aforesaid MAC case.

7. The Learned Tribunal as aforesaid disposed of the issues framed considering the oral as well as documentary evidences and awarded a sum of Rs.7,73,800/-as compensation to be paid equally to each of the four claimants along with an interest at a rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the realization of the compensation amount to be paid by the respondent – the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

8. It was submitted by the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the Learned Tribunal erred in considering the future prospect at the rate of 10% instead of 40%. Moreover, the multiplier of 17 was applied instead of 18. Furthermore, the Tribunal as aforesaid ought to have added 10% with the monthly income of the deceased after an interval of 3 years respectively.

9. The Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company refuted the claim of the appellant and submitted that the Learned Tribunal was justified in computing the awarded compensation.

10. The claim application before the Learned Tribunal was filed by the wife and 3 minor children being represented by the wife of the deceased.

11. PW-2, the Inspector of Income Tax Office, Asansol, Ward-2(1), was authorized to adduce evidence on behalf of the Income Tax Office vide a document marked Exhibit-13. Income Tax Return for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 filed by the deceased were marked as Exhibit-14 series. The document marked as Exhibit-14 series depicted the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,04,620/-for the year 2013-14.

12. The accident occurred on 20.02.2014. The Income Tax Return was filed by the deceased Santosh Gope prior to his accidental death. The document produced before the Court was computer-generated to have been in existence prior to the death of the deceased which obliterated the possibility of any kind of suspicion of being fabricated. The Income Tax Department possessed the document and produced the same independently and the authenticity of the said document was sacrosanct.

13. The Learned Tribunal should not have disregarded the Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14 for computing the annual income of the victim. The Income Tax Return document itself conspicuously stated the source of the assessee’s income. Any variation or discrepancy to that effect should have been challenged before an appropriate authority in case of manipulation or fraudulent information to be dealt with by the Income Tax Department and not by the MAC Tribunal to judge or to ascertain the veracity of the said document or the nature of his profession or source of his income.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj v. T.N. State Transport Corpn., (2015) 2 SCC 764 held the following:-

“8. It is pertinent to note that the only available documentary evidence o