IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that statutory documents like ITR should be prioritized in income assessment for compensation calculations, including allowances and applying the correct age multiplier.

.JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 02.08.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.126/2000, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,30,000/-, in favour of appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, while fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the respondents.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.12.1999, the deceased Rajesh Kumar, who used to work as Deputy Manager (‘Dy. Manager’) in Vikramnagar Post, Grasim Industries, Vikram Cements, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, while coming from Chittorgarh to Vikramnagar, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh in his car bearing number RJ-06-C-4742 was hit by a truck bearing number RJ-09-G-1176 near the Mangrol Bus Stand at 10:00 PM, on account of which he sustained injuries and thereafter succumbed to injuries. His legal representatives filed a claim under Section 166 of MV Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 78,16,000/-. Learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 8,30,000/- to the appellant-claimants with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 18.04.2000, while observing that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-claimants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking account the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,565/- per month, without taking into consideration the allowances such as conveyance, education, soft furnishing, newspaper, uniform, medical and jeep, etc. while relying upon Ex. 26, i.e. the Income Tax Returns (‘ITR’) furnished by the appellant-claimants for assessment year 1999-2000 inasmuch as AW2, Mr. Ramgopal Sharma, who was working as the Dy. Assistant Officer in Vikram Cements, Grasim Industries, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, had clearly deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 16,500/- per month and every year, an annual increement of Rs. 1,000/- was payable. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Sunil Sharma and Ors. Bachitar Singh and Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 425 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has calculated the income of the deceased while taking into consideration the perks and allowances including House-Rent, Dearness & City Compensatory and thus, he submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the income of the deceased without considering the allowances payable to him as a part of his salary.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the salary certificate, which had been duly signed by the Assistant Vice President (P&A) of Vikram Cements, which clearly mentions the consolidated salary of the deceased to be Rs. 1,97,272.00 per annum, including all the perquisites, which was also deposed by the appellant-claimant no. 1/wife of the deceased (AW1) in her statements. He thus submitted that in the light of sufficient evidence available before the learned Tribunal coupled with the fact that the deceased was a First Division Graduate in B.Com, First Division Post-Graduate in M.Com and had also achieved First Rank in the state of Rajasthan in the Chatered Accountant (C.A.) Examination, the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the allowances while completely disregarding the other evidence produced on r