IMPORTANT POINT
Income tax returns are statutory documents for assessing compensation in motor accident claims, and domestic contributions of a deceased homemaker must be recognized in compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)

1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) and 7th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1463 of 2015.

2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the Tribunal.

3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under;

3.1 That on 25.04.2015 at about 11:15 PM when the deceased and her husband left hotel Avalon after attaining the marriage function and while walking on the roadside opposite to Mohini Farm, Opponent no.2 came by driving her car bearing registration No.GJ-1-KS-0502 at an excessive speed and dashed with deceased. As a result of the accident, wife of claimant no.1 i.e., Kanwaljitkumar Ranjitsing Chavla, had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it..

3.2 FIR, in relation to the said accident in question, came to be registered at Vastrapur Police Station being I-C.R.No.75 of 2015. Charge-sheet came to be filed against opponent no.2 - driver of car.

3.3 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the car involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of bus.

3.4 Opponent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the motor car appeared through their lawyer and filed joint written statement at Exh.16. Whereas, opponent no.3 - insurance company (Appellant herein) has appeared through their advocate and filed its written statement at Exh.19.

3.5 After appreciating evidence on record, the Tribunal has found driver of the car solely negligent for causing accident as FIR and chargesheet came to be filed against opponent no.2, who did not remain present for her oral evidence to rebut the allegation of her sole negligence for causing accident.

3.6 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account the documentary evidence led by claimants and in all awarded Rs.50,38,592/- to the original claimants to be paid by opponents jointly and severally.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, opponent no.3 – insurance company has preferred the present first appeal disputing of Rs.13,00,000/- out of total awarded amount granted to the original claimants.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT – INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Learned advocate, Ms.Kirti S. Patak, appearing for the appellant - insurance company has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of deceased only on the basis of Income tax returns, which are submitted on record, which is not the correct approach on the part of the Tribunal to assess the income of deceased. She would further submit that claimants have failed to substantiate incomes, which are mentioned in respective ITRs of deceased and in absence of any proof of drawing such income from so called business of running Cyber cafe in the name of Net World Cyber cafe in the vicinity of Ahmedabad by deceased.

4.1 According to the submission of learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, mere production of ITRs without any account particulars of business of deceased is highly doubtful that she was actually running Cyber Cafe business and it is unsafe to rely upon ITRs of deceased for computation of income.

4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company would further submit that ITR for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 22-09-2015, whereas date of accident was 25.04.2015 then such ITR came to be filed after the date of accident and therefore, the Tribunal could not have considered the income shown in such ITRs.

4.3 Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company would further submit that claimant nos.3 and 4 happens to be father-in-law and