Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 324 of 2025 Kakali Mahata & Anr.

Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy For the Respondent No.1/ : Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee Insurance co.

Heard & Judgment on : 10^th July, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 14^th November, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4^th Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 553 of

2018.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the appellants/claimants on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 9^th April, 2018 at about 6.30 A.M. near Dakshinsole Bus Stop within the jurisdiction of Salboni Police Station District Paschim Medinipur with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a truck bearing registration No. WB-23C/0121 which approached at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently clashed the motor cycle being driven by the victim through the concrete road of NH-60 whereby the victim sustained severe injuries and was transmitted to Mednipur Medical Collage and Hospital wherefrom he was referred to S.S.K.M. Kolkata. He was subsequently admitted at TRA General Hospital wherein he expired on 10^th April, 2018.

4. Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned tribunal erroneously did not consider the document i.e. last income tax return wherein the annual income of the victim for the assessment year 2017-18 had been mentioned.

5. The learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the learned tribunal considering oral and documentary evidence had justifiably computed the compensation amount and this Court should not interfere with the same.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties.

7. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving license, the Insurance policy, the route permit etc. and other ancillary issues have not been disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to consider the point agitated by both the parties. The document marked as Ext. 20 in accordance with the deposition of P.W.3 being the authorized person of the income tax office, I.T.O. Ward 38(1) of Income Tax Office, Sarat Pally Midnapur endorsed the annual income of the victim through certified true copy of the income tax return pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. It was further submitted that the aforesaid document was maintained in the ITO in ordinary course of official business. The assessee had filed the income tax return on 31^st March, 2018 which was processed on 4^th January, 2019. The observation of the learned tribunal that the income tax return contain statement of self-declaration beyond the scope of income tax to verify the same with regard to its veracity and genuineness was not within the purview of the learned tribunal to either comment on or interfere with.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following in Anjali v.

Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC Online SC 1683 “9.The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased’s income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual income to be Rs. 1,18,261/-, approx Rs. 9,855/- per month. This Court in Malarvizhi (supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra) this Court has laid as under:

10. We are in agreement with the High Court tha