Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 7187
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Biswaroop Chowdhury, J
SANDHYA RANI JANA AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD G.I CO. LTD. AND ANR. – Respondent
FMA 70 / 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashique Mondal, Shahmeraz Alam
For the Respondents: Saswata Bhattacharyya
Income tax returns filed before death and accepted by tax authorities are sufficient proof of income in motor accident claims; no need for bank passbooks or other corroboration.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168 - Compensation - Determination of income of deceased - Income tax return as evidence - Future prospects - Multiplier - Deduction for personal expenses - Loss of estate and funeral expenses - Filial consortium - Interest.
(B) Evidence - Income tax return - Statutory document - Reliance for determining income - When income tax return is filed during lifetime of deceased and accepted by Income Tax Authority, it is authentic and need not be corroborated by bank passbooks or other documents - Standard of proof in claim cases is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
(C) Compensation - Computation - For deceased aged 27 years, multiplier of 17 applied - 40% future prospects added - 1/2 deduction for personal expenses - Rs.30,000 for loss of estate and funeral expenses - Rs.80,000 for filial consortium - Total compensation rounded off to Rs.39,00,000.
Facts of the case:
The claimants, parents of deceased, filed claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after deceased died in a motor accident on 23.12.2014. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,05,000 assessing monthly income at Rs.10,000, disregarding income tax returns showing annual income of Rs.3,18,470 for assessment year 2014-2015. Claimants appealed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that income tax returns filed during lifetime of deceased and accepted by the Income Tax Authority are authentic and must be relied upon. Accordingly, annual income taken as Rs.3,18,470; after adding 40% future prospects, deducting 1/2 for personal expenses, applying multiplier 17, plus loss of estate, funeral expenses, filial consortium, total compensation computed as Rs.39,00,000.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the income tax return as evidence of income and in insisting on bank passbooks; what is the correct compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when income tax return is filed during lifetime and accepted by competent authority, it is a statutory document and should be the basis for determining income in motor accident claims, without need for further corroboration. The standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.
Result: Appeal allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 19.05.2022 modified. Respondent insurance company directed to pay Rs.39,00,000 with interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till deposit, within 8 weeks from date.
The appellant before this Court was a claimant in claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 19.05.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 34 of 2015.
The case of the appellant/claimant before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:-
On 23.12.2014 at around 10.30 PM when the deceased was standing on footpath for going to his home from his place of work by foot near Ramjungla Para one motor cycle WB-30K/3073 which was coming with high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained injury and died on spot.
The accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Over the incident a complaint was lodged before the Police Authority and case was instituted under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle.
The deceased was a goldsmith and he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per mensem. The claimant no. 1 is the mother of the deceased, whereas the claimant no. 2 is the father of the deceased. They were dependants upon the income of the deceased who was the only bread earner of the family.
The Respondent no. 2 who was opposite party vehicle owner although filed written statement but did not contest the case. Respondent no. 1 Insurance Company filed written statement and contested the case. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced. Upon considering the evidence and upon hearing the Learned Advocates for the parties Learned Trial Judge was pleased to dispose the claim case by observing and directing as follows:-
‘Hence it is ORDERED that the instant case being MACC No. 34 of 2015 be and same is hereby allowed on contest against the opposite party no. 2 and ex-parte against the OPPOSITE Party no. 1 but without cost.
The opposite party no. 2 ( ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd) which indemnified the opposite party no. 1 is hereby directed to pay the total compensation amount of Rs. 15,05,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs five thousand) only together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till full liquidation by issuing one A/C payee cheque in the name of the claimant no. 1 Sandhyarani Jana u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 within two (02) months from the date of this, order failing which the claimant no. 1 shall be at liberty to put the order in execution.
The appellant/ claimant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant application.
The grounds of challenge in the instant application is that the Learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the victim as Rs. 10,000/- per month and not considering the three consecutive years of income tax submitted, and that the Learned Tribunal ought to have considered the annual income of Rs. 3,18,470/- on the basis of income tax return for AY 2014-2015.
Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1. Perused the evidence adduced.
Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the income from the income tax return filed by the claimants/appellants and considering the income as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned Advocate further submits that the income tax return was submitted during life time of the victim and not after his death and thus there
is no scope to inflate the income. Learned Advocate also submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in insisting Bank Passbooks to be produced in spite of filing copies of income tax return and examination of Income Tax Officer. Learned Advocate relies upon the following decision Learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court
Surendar Kaur Singh vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another FMA 358 of 2021.
Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company submits that
