Assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases should consider the deceased's actual income, and additional evidence such as income tax returns can be admitted to establish the deceased's income.

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal for enhancement as well as an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC filed by the claimants for leading additional evidence to place on record and prove the income tax returns filed by the deceased.

2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that deceased Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident involving Maruti Van No. HP-01-1396, which took place on 29.5.2000. The deceased was aged about 45 years. Claimants who are his widow and minor children filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. It was further alleged that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Government Contractor having income of more than Rs. 40,000 per month and they prayed that compensation of Rs. 28 lacs may be awarded. The parents of the deceased were added as proforma-respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. The respondents contested the claim petition. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month and the dependency of the family at Rs. 6,000 per month. After applying the multiplier of 10 and awarding Rs. 15,000 on another count, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,35,000. Aggrieved against this award, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. It would be pertinent to mention that before the Trial Court claimants proved on record the income tax return of the deceased which showed that his business profit i.e., net income for the assessment year 1999-2000 was Rs. 4,43,825 and on this income he had paid income tax of Rs. 10,750. In addition to filing the income tax return, the widow has also stated that the husband was earning more than Rs. 40,000 per month. There was also other evidence on record to show that huge contracts had been awarded to the deceased by the Public Works Department from time-to-time. The learned Tribunal discarded the income tax return on the ground that only one income tax return had been proved and without giving any reasons whatsoever, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month. This was in fact less than the amount of income tax, which was paid by the deceased. The reasoning of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous and illogical. When evidence had been led before him to show that the last income of the deceased was Rs. 4,43,000 per annum and also there was evidence on record to show that the Public Works Department had awarded works worth more than Rs. 2 crores to the deceased from 1994-95 till his death in the year 2000. From the evidence of P.W. 5 to P.W. 8 who were the officials of the various departments of the Public Works, it stood proved that work worth more than 2 crores had been awarded to the deceased during the period of about 6 years. Therefore, there was no justification in discarding the income tax return of the deceased.

5. During the pendency of the present appeal, the petitioners/appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC to lead additional evidence and have filed the original acknowledgements of the income tax returns for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 i.e., three preceding years. These documents are per se admissible in evidence. These documents could not have been prepared by the claimants at a later stage and their authenticity is not in doubt. It is necessary for this Court to take these documents on record since these returns are essential to arrive at a proper and just conclusion with regard to the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, CMP No. 1008 of 2004 is allowed. The three returns are taken on record and are exhibited as Exts. PA, PB and PC. Ex. PA shows that in the years 1996-97, the net income of the deceased from his profession of contractor was Rs. 2,03,166 and he had paid income tax