Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Smti Payari Devi W/O Sri Nathuni Singh And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri Manoj Kumar Jain S/O Late Praksh Chand Jain And Anr . – Respondents
MACApp./377 of 2018
Decided On : 04-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. A Lal, Mr M Bezbaruah,Mr. B Das,Mr. P K Garodia
For the Respondent:Mr. B K Jain, Ms. O Phukan, learned counsels Mr. K K Bhatta, Advocate
Income-Tax Returns are statutory evidence for assessing income in motor accident claims and must be considered by Tribunals; failure to do so warrants remand for reassessment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and awarded Rs. 6,36,500/- compensation. The appeal sought income reassessment based on Income-Tax Returns not considered by the Tribunal. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 19, 26)
(B) Income-Tax Returns as evidence - Courts should rely on ITRs as statutory documents unless proven otherwise. In this case, ITRs showed the deceased's income significantly higher than that assessed by the Tribunal, justifying a remand for verification. (Paras 14, 21)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, son of petitioner, died in a road accident. Petitioners contested Tribunal's income assessment, arguing that ITRs evidencing higher income were ignored. The deceased was employed and earned more than assessed by the Tribunal. (Paras 4, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the ITRs, which warranted remanding the case for reassessment of the deceased's income and compensation. The other Tribunal findings remain undisturbed. (Paras 19, 24, 26)
Issues: The court addressed whether the Tribunal failed to consider the ITRs while determining income and whether to reassess or remand for further examinations. (Paras 13, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that ITRs are reliable evidence for assessing income in claims and must be included in evaluations. (Paras 14, 18)
Result: Appeal allowed in part and remanded for limited verification of income and recomputation of compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. A Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. C Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K. K Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.02.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 2122/2012, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,36,500/- (rupees six lakhs thirty six thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 6% from 02.09.2015.
3. The claimants/appellants seeks enhancement of the award on the primary ground that the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the deceased. It is contended that although the claimant produced both, a salary certificate and the Income-Tax Returns (ITRs) of the deceased, the Tribunal rejected the salary certificate for want of proof and did not take into account the exhibited ITRs while determining the income of the deceased.
4. The deceased, Karan Singh, son of the claimant No. 1 (Smt. Payari Devi) died in a road traffic accident on 27.10.2012 near Dharapur Petrol Pump, NH-37 after being hit by a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AS-01-MA-2789.
5. The claimants accordingly preferred a compensation case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, being M.A.C.Case No. 2122/2012.
6. The deceased, son of the claimant No. 1, was working as an electrician in a private hospital, earning about Rs. 5,299/- per month, as reflected in the salary certificate produced along with the claim petition being marked as Exhibit-5. The claimant further deposed that the deceased was also engaged in additional electrical work during his free hours.
7. The claimant exhibited two Income-Tax Returns, ITR-4 and ITR-V for the Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12, marked as Exhibits 6(1) and 6(2) respectively. These returns, bearing the acknowledgment and seal of the Income-Tax Department, clearly indicate that the deceased was an Income-Tax assessee.
8. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the salary certificate on the ground that it was not duly proved, and without adverting to or discussing the exhibited ITRs, assessed the income notionally at Rs. 4,500/- per month.
9. Mr. A Lal, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant materials, particularly, the Income-Tax Returns for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have applied the appropriate multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased and not the multiplier 13 which is taken on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased. He further submits that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. He accordingly submits that the impugned award of the Tribunal be enhanced by this Court by taking into account the ITRs exhibited to determine the monthly/yearly income of the deceased, applying the appropriate multiplier; and granting appropriate rate of interest payable from the date of filing of the claim petition.
10. Per contra, Mr. K. K Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, while fairly conceding that the two ITRs exhibited have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased and that interest ought to have been granted ordinarily from the date of filing of the claim petition, however, he submits that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal as payable to the claimants being fair and reasonable, the same ought not to be interfered with.
11. Ms. C Agarwal, learned counsel for the owner cum driver of the vehicle/
