The court applied the principles of income assessment, multiplier, and loss of income as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case No.32/2000, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,08,200/- as compensation to the appellants-claimants on account of the death of Hussain Bohra in the accident which occurred on 30.09.1999.

2. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.3 and 5 are incorrect on account of the fact that the deceased was a businessman and he had filed his income tax returns time to time. He submits that the income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-97 shows the income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/-, for the assessment year 1997-98 as Rs.70,750/-, for the assessment year 1998-99 as Rs.84,765/- and for the assessment year 1999-00, the income of the deceased shows as Rs. 1,05,782/-. The income tax returns were placed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal committed an error by taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased only Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore submits that the income of the deceased should be assessed after taking into consideration the gradual growth of the business income as projected in the income tax return papers.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no amount towards the loss of future prospects was awarded to the appellants in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No.3 and 5 is perfectly justified in view of the assessment of the income tax returns filed before it. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the deceased was a businessman, therefore, it cannot be said that he will always have a high business income. He therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

6. However, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the submissions with respect to the amount towards the future prospects being denied to the claimants in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present case as the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the other relevant record of the case.

8. The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased discussed the income received by him on the basis of the income tax returns filed before it. However, the Triubnal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- only. This Court feels that the income assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect and the ends of justice will be met if the average income of the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-00 is taken into consideration for computation of the award. Since, the income of the deceased for the assessment year 1998-99 was Rs.84765/- and for the assessment year 1999-00, was Rs. 1,05,784/-, therefore, the average income of the two assessment years will come to Rs.95,273/-. The age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident, therefore multiplier of 16 will be applied in the present case and as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Praney Sethi (supra), the loss of income to the extent of 40% is required to be added while computing the award. Thus, in the consi