IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that income tax returns are essential for determining compensation in motor accident claims, and the assessment must reflect just and fair compensation principles.

JUDGMENT :

(Radhakishan Agrawal, J.)

1. This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in M.A.Claim Case No.529/2012 vide impugned award dated 08.04.2016.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.10.2011, when Suresh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was returning to Ambikapur from village Pahadgaon while driving his Car bearing registration No.CG-15-B-3471, near N.H. 43 main road of Sanjay Nagar, Mahabirpur at about 7:30 pm, the said Car was hit by the truck bearing registration No.CG-14-A-3271 (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Non-applicant No.3/driver in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into, accident occurred and deceased died inside the Car itself. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle whereas respondent No.1 was insurer of the same.

3. Owing to death of deceased Suresh Kumar Goyal, claimants, being wife and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.67,00,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.2,50,600/- from Automobile business and agricultural work.

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents/Non-applicants No.1 & 2 on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 08.04.2016, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has held respondent no.3/driver of the offending vehicle liable for cause of accident by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, deceased died and there was no breach of policy conditions and awarded Rs.2,77,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation while directing the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

6. Shri C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was income tax payee, as is evident from Ex.P.11, which is an acknowledgment of Income Tax return for financial year 2008-2009/assessment year 2009-2010, issued by the Income Tax Department and the same has been filed by him when he was alive, showing that his gross total income was Rs.1,78,550/- and the income tax payable is Rs.1,015/-. He further submits that the Ex.P.11 bears seal of the Income Tax Department and the date of filing of return was 31.03.2010. He further contends that despite there being documentary evidence, such as Ex.P.11 on record, the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the same while assessing his annual income and merely on notional basis, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- on its own while considering the provisions contained in Minimum Wages Act and also considering him to be a daily wage labourer. He also contends that no future prospects has been awarded and that date of birth of the deceased is 01.12.1958 as per driving licence (Ex.P.10) and at the time of accident he was 53 years, but the learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 7 considering his age to be 63 years whereas the correct applicable multiplier would be 11. It is also submitted by him that neither the insurance company nor the driver and owner has examined any witness before the Claims Tribunal. His next contention is that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side and that applicable deduction would be 1/4th in place of 1/3rd as made by the Tribunal. He relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (20