The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of income tax return in determining the deceased's income and the application of statutory documents to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 15.01.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special/Additional District Judge, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 31 of 2007 awarding a sum of Rs.1,24,500/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as compensation.

2. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-New India Insurance Company Ltd. None appears for the remaining respondents.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 17.01.2007 when deceased was driving his Indica Car No. U.P.-60-H-4901 owned by him and was travelling on Varanasi Ghazipur road, D.C.M. Truck No. U.P.-65-H-8205 coming from opposite side, which was driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the said car at about 10.00 p.m. In this accident, Anand Kumar and Jatin Kumar died on spot and Kumari Drishya Verma and Abhishek Verma sustained grievous injures. Deceased was a healthy person who was partner in J.J. Honda agency Ballia and was dealing in the business of purchase and sale of silver-golden ornaments, in retain which is his ancestral occupation. He was earning Rs. 1,77,578 annually and was paying income tax. He was unmarried. Claimant/appellant no. 1-Moti Lal Sarraf is the father, Claimant/appellant no. 2-Smt. Tara Devi is the mother and Claimant/appellant no. 3- is the sister of the deceased.

4. The accident is not in dispute, the liability of owner/insurance company to pay the compensation is also not disputed. The finding regarding negligence has attained finality. So now it is the dispute of quantum of compensation which is left to be decided in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a business man he was engaged in jewelry business. It is also submitted that the deceased was income tax payee and his income tax return has been filed on record, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the income mentioned in income tax return on the ground that source of income is not proved by the appellants which was not required. Hence, learned Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount of compensation. Learned counsel also submitted that it is also opined by the learned Tribunal that income tax return of only one year is filed. Learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that the income at the time of death of the deceased was relevant. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal not given any amount for loss of future income and multiplier of 5 is applied on the basis of age of the parents of the deceased wife, multiplier should have applied according to the age of the deceased. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that only Rs. 2,000/-were granted for funeral expenses and of Rs. 2,500/-were granted for loss of estate. No amount is granted for the loss of love and affection.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently objected the submissions made by the appellants and further submitted that income of deceased mentioned in income tax return is not proved. Moreover, income tax return is in the name of firm and the shop of deceased is not disclosed. Hence, learned Tribunal rightly consider notional income of the deceased but learned counsel very fairly submitted that the multiplier should be applied according to the age of the deceased.

7. We have perused the record and impugned judgment.

8. The deceased died on 17.01.2007, hence income of financial year 2005-06 may be relevant. Appellants have filed the copy of income tax return of the deceased pertaining to the financial year 2005-06 which is paper no. 14-C on the record. This goes to show that it is not in the name of firm but it is "individual". This document shows the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 1,77,578/-Learned Tribunal has ignored the income tax return on the ground that registration certificate of business a