IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of income tax returns filed after the deceased's death for assessing income and the factors to be considered in computing compensation, including the multiplier and dependency.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharya and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The insurance company is on appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 2269/2008.

3. The respondents no 1 to 5 as claimants filed a claim case before the Member, MACT Kamrup claiming compensation for the death of the husband of the respondent no 1 in a vehicular accident on 21. 04.2008. The factum of accident has not been challenged in this appeal.

4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup has erroneously considered the income of the deceased vide income tax return which was filed by the claimants one year ten months after the death of the deceased disregarding the income disclosed in the returns filed before his death i.e. when he was alive. The learned Member ignored the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard holding that income tax returns filed after the death of a person cannot be relied upon for assessment of the income of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the death of the deceased had occurred on 21. 04. 2008 and the income tax return relied upon by the Tribunal was filed on 10. 02. 2010 which is not permissible.

In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following case law:

(a) V. Subbulakshmi and Others vs. S. Lakshmi and Another, (2008) 4 SCC 224

6. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred due to head on collusion. Hence the insurance company is liable to pay 50 % of the awarded amount.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents, on the other hand, has admitted the law on the principle laid down by the Apex Court regarding income tax return. However, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has stated that merely because the accident was head on collusion, it will not make it a case of contributory negligence.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal and the documents available in the records.

9. As per judgment of the learned Tribunal, the claimant has furnished the income tax return of the deceased for the year 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As per the income tax return, the last gross total income of the deceased for the year 2006-2007 was Rs. 1,19,100/-. As per the income tax return for the year 2007-2008, the last gross total income of the deceased was Rs. 1,41,802/-. For the income tax return of the year 2008-2009, the last gross total income of the deceased was Rs. 2,11,975/-. As per documents available on the record the said income tax return was submitted in the year 2010 i.e. after the death of the deceased which is not permissible in law. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the last gross total income of the deceased was Rs. 1,04,500/- prior to his death for the year 2006-2007 and which was not opposed by the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. Hence, the yearly income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 1,04,500/-.

10. Regarding Contributory Negligence, it is the trite law that even if the accident has occurred as a head on collusion, the same cannot lead to inference that it was on account of negligence of both the drivers. The same has to be determined in the light of evidence on record in form of ocular evidence led with respect to accident and the documentary evidence in the form of site plan etc. Thus, it cannot be held as a Rule that any head on collusion between the two vehicles should be taken as a case of Contributory Negligence.

11. In the case in hand, no any evidence has come out that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of both the vehicles. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay th