The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory nature of Income Tax Returns and their relevance in determining the deceased's income for the purpose of compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The misc. appeal filed by the claimants-appellants and the cross objections filed by the respondent No.2 arising out of common judgment and award, hence, both are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC No.1745/2009 whereby an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Dr. Indira Sogani in the accident occurred on 06.08.2009.

3. When notices of the present appeal were issued to respondents, they submitted cross-objections against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Tribunal and took objection that there was contributory negligence on the part of the daughter of the deceased due to which accident occurred and she was not having any license to ply the scooter.

4. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,83,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Income Tax Returns i.e. Ex.11,12 and 13 submitted by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Naturopathy Doctor and she was also doing the business of garments and she was having her own income but the Tribunal has seriously erred in not relying the same and without any basis the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a housewife and her income was determined as Rs.3000/- per month, hence, the impugned award needs interference.

6. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that while passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has not granted future prospects to the appellants in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & anr. reported in 2020(1) ACTC (SC) 1 has held that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased.

7. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi Vs. Arvind reported in 2018 (2) ACTC (Raj.) 1167, in which this Court has held that there is no legal requirement to produce the Chartered Accountant to prove the Income Tax Return. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the recomputation of the award in the light of judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Malarvizhi (supra) and Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi (supra) may be done.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that a detailed cross-examination was done with the witness AW-2 Mukesh Sogani (husband of the deceased) with regard to income and business of the deceased, but he has failed to prove the income and business of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the Income Tax Returns Ex.11, 12 and 13 did not bear the signatures of the deceased, hence, genuineness of the said documents is doubtful. He further argued that there was contributory negligence on the part of daughter of the deceased, who was plying the scooter in a rash and negligent manner without having any license to ply the same. So,