The court emphasized that posthumously filed Income Tax Returns should not be considered in assessing the deceased's income, and future rise in income should be reasonably estimated.

M.R SHAH, J.

ADMIT.

Mr. Arvind Thakore, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents-original claimants

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal” for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2012 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,30,000/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased-Mauliksinh Zala, original opponent No.3-New India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present First Appeal.

3. It is not in dispute that in a vehicular accident which occurred on 2/1/2012, deceased Mauliksinh Zala died. That the original claimants-widow and two minors and parents of the deceased filed claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.50 Lacs towards compensation under different heads.

4. To prove the income, the original claimants relied upon Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 produced at Ex. Nos. 24 to 26.

5. Taking the mean of the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the aforesaid Assessment Years, the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the time of death of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter adding 50% towards future rise in income, the learned tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.2,07,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.31,05,000/- towards future loss in income. That thereafter, the learned tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by the impugned judgment and award, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,30,000/- under different heads with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, original opponent No.3-Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal.

7. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum.

8. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum, the learned tribunal has considered the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. It is submitted that the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 has been filed subsequently after the death of the deceased and therefore, the same was not required to be considered by the learned tribunal. It is submitted that therefore, if the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are considered, in that case, even considering the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2010-2012, the income of the deceased at the time of accident at the best can be considered at Rs.1,68,000/- per annum.

9. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income while considering the prospective income.

10. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that considering the