The court upheld that Income Tax Returns serve as a critical basis for determining compensation amounts in personal injury claims.

O R D E R

% 01.09.2025 CM APPL. 54741/2025 [Exemption from filing certified copy]

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 54742/2025 [Exemption from filing certified copy]

3. Allowed, subject to the Appellant filing certified copy of the claim petition within a period of three weeks.

4. The Application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 & CM APPL. 54740/2025 [Stay]

5. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 19.05.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, PO MACT (SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Award, compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,25,35,440/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the challenge in the present Appeal is on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that there is a mismatch in the actual cause of the accident between the medico legal report and the FIR.

6.1 Secondly, it is submitted that the award is unusually large and not in terms of the Income Tax Returns. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that three years of Income Tax Returns should have been taken into consideration and the average of the three years should have been ascertained.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Claimant, who appears on advance service, submits that so far as concerns the accident, the injured was in fact standing on the road and was not in a vehicle and that this aspect comes out clearly from the chargesheet and other related investigation reports. Secondly, it is submitted that so far as concerns the condition of the injured, he is suffering from 90% mental and neurological impairment. He submits that the injured is unable to perform his work and hence his functional disability is 100%. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded amounts based on examination of the Income Tax Returns. Thus, it is contended that the Impugned Award does not suffer from any infirmity.

7.1 Reliance is also placed by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Claimant on the findings of the learned Tribunal wherein the learned Tribunal examined the Income Tax Returns of three years and based thereon has held that since the Income Tax Return that was filed for the year when the accident took place, the income was reduced, and thus, has relied on the Income Tax Returns covering the phase of the year immediately before the accident. Reliance in this behalf is placed on paragraph 35(E) of the Impugned Award, relevant extract of which is as follows:

“(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:

(i) PW-1 deposed that her husband used to run a grocery store at Jogabai Extension, Jamia Nagar earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, however, after the accident, he has never been able to work again. During cross examination, she stated that the shop was owned by a relative of theirs. She admitted that she has not filed any document in respect of her husband running a Kirana Shop. She declined a suggestion that her husband was not running any such shop. She has not filed on record any educational qualification certificate for her husband, however, she has filed income tax return of the Financial Year 2015 to 2019 filed by the injured relied as Ex.PW1/7 as per which his gross total income was Rs. 298529/- in the AY 2016-2017 which increased to Rs. 3,36,759/- in the AY -2017-2018, however, in the year 2018-2019 it plunged to Rs.45,433/- possibly because injured was never able to return back to work. Gross Total Income for AY 2017-2018 is Rs.3,36,759/-. Relying on the last ITR covering the phase of accident and phase immediately th