* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03 April 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 24 April 2025 + MAC. APP. 492/2016 M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Navdeep Singh & Mr.

Subhash Singh, Advs.

versus SMT. SUKHPAL KAUR & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Anish Dewan, Mr. Yash Yadav, Ms. Garima Verma, Mr. Aayush D, Ms. Shruti Jain, Ms. Kashish Jain, Mr. Chitranshi and Ms. Yangtsapila Sangtam, Advs.

For R1 to R4.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan and Mr. Nirbhay Sharma, Advs.

For R-6.

Mr. Yuvraj Sharma & Mr.

Pankaj Seth, Advs. For R-9.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G E M E N T

REVIEW PET. 122/2024 & CM. APPL. 9536/2025 in MAC. APP.

492/2016

1. The present review petition has been preferred by respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, Late Sh. Iqbal Singh Dosanjh, seeking review of the judgment dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Court vide which the appeal preferred by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMMOADC. APP. 492/2016 Page 1 of 9 the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment-cum-award dated 21.03.2016, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, [MACT], was partly allowed, thereby reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 2,23,34,350/- to Rs. 49,29,860/-, which was directed to be paid to the widow of the deceased along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 07.04.2010, till the date of realisation.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 4/claimants submitted that the impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that this Court did not consider that the Income Tax Return2 for the year 2007 clearly reflected the deceased’s annual income as US $97,500, which had been appropriately relied upon by the learned MACT while determining the quantum of compensation. It is further contended that the ITRs for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, which were placed on record, were never disputed or challenged by the appellant/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal.

3. It is additionally submitted that the impugned judgment erroneously concluded that the ITRs had not been proved in accordance with law, nor were they authenticated through the Indian Embassy or Consulate, and that the documents were not certified downloads from the official website of the United States Internal Revenue Service. The respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants assert, however, that the said ITRs, as filed before the learned MACT, were

2 ITR

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMMOADC. APP. 492/2016 Page 2 of 9 duly exhibited, having been notarized and stamped by the competent authorities in the United States, as is evident from the documents filed on record. It is further urged that the appellant/Insurance Company neither raised any objection to the admissibility of the said documents nor subjected them to cross-examination. Consequently, the ITRs remained unchallenged and unrebutted on record, and the learned MACT rightly relied upon the same to assess the annual income of the deceased as US $97,500.

4. It is further submitted by the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants that this Court, while passing the impugned judgment, appears to have inadvertently proceeded on the basis of an annual income of US $28,000 for the deceased. The respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants submit that the income of the deceased was duly proved on record by way of exhibited Income Tax Returns, which were neither disputed nor subjected to cross-examination by the appellant/Insurance Company, and thus remained unrebutted. Support in this regard is drawn from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Ors.

vs. Lokendra Rathod and Ors.³

5. It is further submitted that the deceased was not solely employed with McClatchy Newspaper but was also working with Stanislaus Food Products Company, in addition to running his own trucking business under t