The main legal principle established in the judgment is the reliance on the highest Income Tax Return (ITR) as the primary evidence for determining the deceased's annual income in motor accident claims, emphasizing the statutory nature of ITR and its significance in computing the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal emanates from the judgement and award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat (for short “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.175 of 2008.

2. The only issue, which is raised by the appellant-claimant in the present appeal, is with regard to the determination of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. yearly at Rs.60,000/-.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Darji has submitted that though the documentary evidence in the form of Income Tax Return (for short “the ITR”) is available showing the enhanced income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the said amount of monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.60,000/- p.a. He has pointed out the ITR for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on mark 28/7, wherein the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.47,514/- and for the Financial Year 2008-09 i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.97,235/-. It is submitted that the fateful accident, which consumed the life of the deceased, has taken place on 06.04.2008 and in the ITR of the same financial year ending on 31.03.2009, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.97,235/- hence, once the statutory document is available on record, the income of the deceased was required to be fixed at par with the ITR.

3.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Darji has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Malarvizhi and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2020) 4 S.C.C. 228 and judgement dated 06.12.2022 in the case of Smt. Anjali and Ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod and Ors. rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.009014 of 2022 vide order dated 06.12.2022. It is also submitted that in fact, the Tribunal has also fallen in error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- by considering average, which is impermissible as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala and Ors. vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr., (2015) 9 S.C.C. 150. He has further placed reliance on the judgement dated 16.06.2020 in the case of Smt. Sangita Arya and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2020 vide order dated 16.06.2020. Thus, it is submitted that accordingly, further compensation, which has been awarded under various heads, is also required to be enhanced.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dholakiya has submitted that the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference. He has submitted that looking to the service of the deceased, the Tribunal has precisely assessed his income, who was a diamond broker, at Rs.60,000/- p.a. and hence, the impugned judgement and award may not be interfered with.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

CONCLUSION

6. In the present case, the documentary evidence reveals that the deceased met with the fatal accident on 06.04.2008, which consumed his life. Before the Tribunal, it is established that the deceased was a diamond broker and accordingly, the income tax return at mark 28/7 and 28/8 were produced by the claimants for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the income of the deceased, as per the ITR, was Rs.47,514/-, whereas for the Assessment Year 2008-09, yearly income of the deceased was shown as Rs.97,235/-. The deceased had passed away after 6 days of ending of the Financial Year on 31.03.2008. Though, the documentary evidences, which are statutory in nature, are produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has assessed and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- p.a. by taking average income of both the assessment years.

7. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the observations made