3. The respondent no. 1/claimant filed a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh, claiming compensation for the death of their son. On completion of the trail, the learned MACT, Dibrugarh by judgment and order dated 29.11.2014, awarded a total amount of Rs. 12,70,000/-

with 6% interest per annum.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award dated 29.11.2014, the appellant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: -

a) That the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh failed to consider that the deceased was only 22 years old and was a small shopkeeper in a small locality. Although the claimant/ respondent claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- per month, and filed income tax return in support of the same, the authenticity of the Income Tax return was categorically denied by theopposite party.It was therefore necessary for the claimant to prove the income of the deceased by examining the author of the document on the basis of which the income was considered as Rs. 15,000/- per month.

b) That the observation of the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh that even thought the income certificate was obtained after the accident, the same cannot be disbelieved is against the settled position of law that income tax return filed after the death of a person have no evidentiary value.

c) That the assessment and compensation made by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh is palpably erroneous, as a result of which, the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh has imposed liability on the appellant which is excessive.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayalaxmi @ Roopa V. Shenoy &Anr Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2025. The relevant paragraph 7 is reproduced herein below:

“7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the deceased. It has been clarified in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when available, being a statutory document. More recently, this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand while determining the income of the deceased therein had observed:

“8. ….Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Subbulakshmi & Ors Vs. S. Lakshmi &Anr reported in (2008) STPL 4621 SC. The relevant paragraph being Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 20, 21, 22 and 24 are reproduced herein below:

“3. An application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was filed by the appellants in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur). A written statement was filed by the Insurance Company in the said proceedings. The same was adopted by the owner of the vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the appellants produced some documents to show that the income of the deceased was about 12,500/-

per month. He is said to have been deriving income both as an agriculturist as also from his business as commission agent in the business of coconut.

4. The Tribunal, inter alia, keeping in view the fact that the Income Tax Returns were filed only after the death of the said Vadivellu, estimated at Rs. 9,600/- per month.

5. The High Court, however, estimated the income of the deceased to be around a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, from his agricultural operation and Rs. 3,000/- from his commission business, totalling a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month and upon dedu