IMPORTANT POINT
Income tax returns can be relied upon for assessing compensation, and future prospects are applicable even for non-permanent jobs.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019, seeking quashing and setting aside qua appellant/insurance company, has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2019(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by MACT-I, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 24/2015. And S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2667/2019, seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation, has been preferred by the respondents/claimants under Section 173 of the Act against the impugned award. As both the appeals arise from the common order, the same are being decided by this common order and facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 are being taken illustratively.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.07.2014 Dileep Kumar Soni (hereinafter as ‘the deceased’) was traveling to Balesar in the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ19 UA 7936(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), and at around 11:00 PM, the vehicle while being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent no. 7/driver turned turtle and as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. The FIR no. 101/2014(Ex.5) was lodged at P.S. Balesar, Jodhpur and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the respondent no. 7/driver. The Claim petition - Claim Case No. 24/2015 was filed by the respondent no. 1 to 6(hereinafter as ‘the claimants’) before MACT-I, Jodhpur(hereinafter as 'the learned tribunal’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,85,000/-on account of the death of the deceased.

3. The learned tribunal framed 5 issues. The claimants examined three witness(AW1 to AW3) and exhibited documentary evidences. The appellant/insurance company as well as respondent no. 7 and 8 did not produce any evidence before the learned tribunal.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties and material available on record, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition vide impugned award and awarded Rs.40,70,080/- as compensation to the claimants and held appellant/insurance company and respondent no. 7 and 8 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation.

5. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/insurance company have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 and the claimants have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2667/2019 before this court.

6. As there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company has restricted his arguments to the quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal. He submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year-2013-14(Ex.-21) as the claimants did not produce any evidence in support of Ex.-21. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding future prospects as the deceased was not in a permanent job.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding consortium to Respondent no. 2 to 5(Minor children of the deceased) and Respondent no. 6(Mother of the deceased). He further, submits that the learned tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 16 instead of 18.

8. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company with respect to assessment of the income of the deceased on the basis of Ex.-21(ITR for AY-2013-14) does not have any force as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683(at para 9 and 10) has held that Income Tax Return, being a statutory document can be relied upon for computation of annual income of the deceased/claimant. Thus, the learned tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon Ex.-21 for computation of the ann