JUDGMENT

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

1. Both the appeals are preferred against the same judgment by the claimants and Insurance Company, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Zafar Ullah Siddique, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

3. In this appeal, the legal heirs of Late Shri Shabbir Ahmad alias Shabban have assailed the final judgment/award dated 13.10.2011 passed by Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge/First FTC, Haldwani in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 2011. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted in this case on the ground that the Tribunal has taken into consideration income of the deceased as a tempo driver and has ignored the true income tax returns filed by them showing his income to be Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-2011.

4. A careful examination of the record reveals that the learned Judge Presiding the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income tax returns filed for the aforesaid two assessment years cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that income tax was not actually paid and the income shown by the predecessor in interest of the claimants is actually less than exempted limit, and therefore, he has not paid any amount towards income tax.

5. Learned Tribunal further held that the deceased has no landed property of his own. The Tribunal instead of taking his actual income, calculated the compensation on the basis of minimum wages i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month.

6. The approach adopted by the learned Presiding Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Firstly, the accident took place on 11.12.2010 and examination of the income tax return shows that it has been filed on 31.03.2010 and 10.11.2020 i.e. much prior to the death of the deceased on 11.12.2010. The acknowledgement receipts filed by the claimants bear signature and seal of the Income Tax Department of even date mentioned above. So, the learned Tribunal committed an error in not accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,50,000/- for the assessment year 2009-2010, and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the assessment year 2010-2011. Moreover, these two documents are ante-litem documents came into existence prior to the initiation of the proceedings and even prior to the death of the deceased.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that even though no income tax was actually paid by the deceased, the amount of compensation has to be calculated on the basis of the income tax returns document filed by the claimants before the Tribunal. In this connection, we rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of “IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Promila reported in 2019 SCC Online Punjab and Haryana 511" where for the year 2010, the income tax return was filed before the Tribunal which was not accepted by the Tribunal and the High Court enhanced the sum of compensation accepting the income of the deceased as per the income tax return submitted by the claimants without paying any income tax to the Department.

8. In that view of the matter, we take the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum, after reduction of 1/3rd the annual income of deceased come to Rs. 1,00,000/-. If it is multiplied by 15, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 15,00,000/-. Adding the loss of pain and suffering, the loss of estate, funeral expenses and other expenses, which is calculated to be lump sum Rs. 1,00,000/- and the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 16,00,000/-.

9. Hence, the appeal is allowed. While confirming the findings of the Tribunal on all issues except issue No. 4 we disposed of the appeal by enhancing the