Order On Board

1. Since the aforesaid appeals involve common questions of fact and law, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. MAC No.162/2020 has been filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement in the compensation amount and MAC No.2252/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 05.09.2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 255/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application and awarded ₹ 14,08,000/- along with interest for death of Gajadhar Verma, fastening liability upon the non-applicants to pay compensation severally or jointly.

MAC No.2252/2019

3. Mr. G.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.2252/2019 would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in MAC No.2252/2019 would submit that compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably as the Insurer's appeal being MA(C) No.1440/2018 [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sahodra Bai & Ors] has already been dismissed by this Court by order dated 28.02.2026.

5. In the light of order dated 28.02.2026 passed in MA(C) No.1440/2018 dismissing the Insurer’s appeal arising out the same accident, the MA(C) No.2252/2019 is hereby also dismissed.

MA(C) No.162/2020.

6. Ms. Anamika Jain, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the less compensation. She would also submit that the deceased was involved in construction work and earning Rs.60,000/- per month & filing income tax return regularly but the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased ₹ 7,000/- per month. She would further submit that under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses less amount has been awarded and no amount under the head loss of estate has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be enhanced suitably.

7. Mr. G.S. Patel, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely.

9. Learned Claims Tribunal without considering the income tax return filed by the claimants for the year 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, and examination of the income tax official, assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.7,000/-. It is evident that the claimants have produced the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The returns of assessment year 2012-2013 disclose a gross annual income of Rs.2,62,445/- along with income from other sources amounting to Rs.94,800/-. The learned Tribunal discarded the said Income Tax Returns solely on the ground that the income disclosed therein was based on estimation and that no documentary evidence regarding the monthly income of the deceased had been produced. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said approach is unsustainable. The Income Tax Returns, having been duly produced and exhibited, constitute relevant documentary evidence for determining the income of the deceased. In the