Order on Board

05.02.2025

1) Heard.

2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the award dated

03.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in Claim Case No.33/2022 for enhancement of compensation.

3) The facts of the present case are that on 14.04.2022 at about 7:30 a.m.

when the deceased Lekhram Verma along with his father was going for treatment on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-08-AS-1303 towards Paddy Procurement Centre at Village Mandrakuhi, the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-4-JA-7159 being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorbike of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death.

4) Respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The Claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,74,50,000/- as compensation. The driver, owner as well as the insurance company filed their reply and denied the contents of the application.

5) The learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence fastened liability with the insurance company as the offending vehicle was insured with it and awarded a compensation of Rs.39,29,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of application till the date of its realization.

6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would argue that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in assessing the notional income of the deceased. He would further submit that according to Ex.P/13, the income tax return of the year 2021-2022, the net professional income of the deceased was Rs.2,45,150/- whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and the same was on the lower side. He would contend that on other heads, proper compensation was paid by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the correct multiplier was applied and 1/3rd amount from the notional income was deducted as there were only two dependents.

7) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that there is a difference of only Rs.5,150/- and in round figure, Rs.20,000/- monthly income was assessed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, there is no need to revisit the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

8) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would support the contentions made by Mr. Gupta.

9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

10)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Malarvizhi and others Vs.

United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2020 (4) SCC 228 and Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1683, held that the income tax return being statutory document is admissible and the Court should give preference to such document.

11)In the matter of Malarvizhi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 held as under:-

“10.The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two judgments of the High Court. The Tribunal arrived at two different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to determine the agricultural income on an average of the two amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income reflected in the income tax returns for the assessment year 1997-1998. The relevant portion of the return reads:

“Income from House property – Rs. 1,920 Business profit (other than 14.b) - Rs.1,21,071 Net Agricultural income – Rs. 88,140”

The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs 2,11,131 in the relevant assessment year. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant cont