The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of income tax returns and entitlement to future prospective income for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

Mauna M. Bhatt, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) has been filed by the appellants – original claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 15.3.2019 passed by MACT (Auxi), CBI Court No.4, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in MACP No.398 of 2011 wherein the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.26,56,324/- under different heads.

2. The brief facts are as under:

2.1. That the accident in question occurred between Maruti Alto Car No. GJ-1-HG-7729 and luxuy bus No. RJ-27-P-6466. On 17.5.2011 at about 4:30 p.m., Narotambhai Vitthalbhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was driving a Maruti Alto Car NO. GJ-1-HG-7729, from Ahmedabad to Ambaji. When the car reached near Prantiya, the luxury bus No.RJ-25-P-6466 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with Maruti Alto Car from front. For the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The legal heirs of deceased as original claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.1.5 crore. It was case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the driver of luxury bus. It was further their case that the deceased by way of doing business in the name of Patel Engineering Works, Ahmedabad was earning Rs.4,71,578/- p.a. It was further their case that the deceased was a partner in the partnership firm and in support of their claim had produced income tax return for Assessment Year 2008-2009 Exh.45, Assessment Year 2009-2010 Exh.46 and Assessment Year 2010-2011 Exh.47.

3. Upon claim petition being filed, notices were issued. Respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence decided the issue of negligence in favour of original claimants by holding the driver of luxury bus as sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. In relation to compensation the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,98,061/- under different heads as under :

4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement.

5. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants and Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. As liability has not been denied, presence of respondent No.1 (owner of bus), respondent No.3 (owner of Alto Car) and respondent No.4 (Insurer of Alto Car) is not necessary, and dispensed with.

6. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants submitted that the Tribunal is in error in assessing the Income Tax returns of the deceased by taking into consideration the written filed by the partnership firm and then dividing the same by ½ considering that there were two partners to the firm through which the deceased was doing his business. He further submitted that the income tax returns filed by the deceased as individual are on record at Exh.45 for AY 2008-2009, Exh.46 for AY 2009-2010 and Exh.47 for AY 2010-2011. In the last return filed by the deceased for the year under consideration (AY 2010-2011), the gross total income was declared at Rs.4,94,456/- and after deducting the tax the net income would come to Rs.4,60,619/- and therefore, the Tribunal is in error in considering the returns filed by the firm and not by the deceased in his individual capacity. He further submitted that as deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident, the claimants would be entitled to 25% rise towards future prospective income. 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and multi