SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Smt. Rajbala & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 120 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Adv., for the Appellants.
Ms. Vandana Kahlon & Mr. Rudra Kahlon, Advocates for R-3.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the latest Income Tax Return in determining 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need to consider the deceased's true income at the time of the accident.

Headnote:

Income Tax Returns - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 - The court discussed the interpretation of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevance of the latest Income Tax Return in determining the loss of income. It emphasized the importance of considering the deceased's true income at the time of the accident and set aside the Impugned Award based on averaging of the ITRs, directing reassessment based on the ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17 alone.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal challenged the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, specifically contesting the use of average income from multiple Income Tax Returns (ITRs) instead of the latest ITR for determining compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal erred in averaging the income from the last three ITRs of the deceased, reducing the 'just compensation' payable to the claimants. It set aside the Impugned Award and directed reassessment based on the ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17 alone.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the relevance of the latest ITR in assessing the loss of income of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the deceased's true income at the time of the accident and highlighted that the latest ITR should generally be taken as evidence thereof, unless reasons are shown for disregarding it.

Final Decision: The Impugned Award was set aside in part, and the compensation was directed to be reassessed based on the ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17 alone. All other directions of the Tribunal in the Impugned Award were sustained and upheld.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Court (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACPNo. 231/2017 titled Smt. Raj Bala and Ors. v. Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma @ Kishno and Ors.

2. The limited challenge to the Impugned Award raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the average of the income of the deceased disclosed in the Income Tax Returns (hereinafter referred to as the `ITR') filed for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17, instead of the latest ITR, that is the ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which also had been filed prior to the date of the accident.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashikala & Ors. v.Gangalakshmamma and Anr., (2015) 9 SCC 150, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Supreme Court has held that while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to award "just compensation", considering the age of the deceased and the nature of business he was doing. The Supreme Court held that the latest Income Tax Return should have been taken by the High Court in that case for determining such "just compensation". He submits that in the present case as well, the learned Tribunal should have placed reliance only on the latest ITR of the deceased for determining his income.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangita Arya and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 327, submits that the Supreme Court had, in that case, determined compensation on the basis of the average of the ITRs filed for the Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07. He submits that in case of a self-employed person, the average of the ITRs filed for the preceding years is a better and more reasonable manner of determining "just compensation" payable inasmuch as it does away with abrasions in the income for a particular year.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It need not be re-emphasized that the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act should be `just', `fair', and `reasonable., and for determining the same, no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In a given fact situation, the Tribunal may very well, for reasons to be recorded, not rely upon the latest Income Tax Return of the deceased and instead may adopt the return which in the opinion of the Tribunal would reflect the true income of the deceased, or may even adopt the average of the income disclosed in the ITRs of the deceased for the preceding few years. However, as a general rule, the latest Income Tax Return of the deceased filed before the date of the accident, except in cases where reasons are shown for disregarding the same, should be taken as a basis for determining the loss of income, as it would be more approximate to the date of the accident and reflect the current income of the deceased on the date of the accident. To give an example, an ITR filed for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 may be ignored on the ground that it may reflect deflated income of the deceased due to his business being affected by the restrictions imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic and that in such a case, the ITR for the Assessment Year prior thereto or an average of income disclosed in ITRs of one/two/three Assessment Years prior thereto may be found to be a more `just', `fair', and `reasonable' evidence to determine the income of the deceased. The latest ITR may also be disregarded where it is shown that it has reflected an abnormal increase in the income of the deceased due to some abrasion or exceptional event, like a windfall gain. However, ordinarily, the latest ITR would truly reflect the income of the deceased at the time of the accident, and sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top