Income tax returns are admissible for assessing the income of the deceased in motor accident claims, and the remarriage of a widow does not necessitate increasing the deduction for personal expenses if other dependents are present.

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant–original opponent No.3 – The New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Kalol, District Gandhinagar (for short referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1256 of 2014 under Section 166 of the MV Act wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and awarded compensation of Rs.35,84,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

[2.0] Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the appellant.

[3.0] The brief facts of the present appeal are that on 15.04.2018, Darshan Hiteshbhai Pandya was driving Motorcycle No.GJ-18-CQ-9882 and claimant No.1 was pillion rider and at about 11.45 a.m., when they reached at the place of accident, driver of Eicher Truck No.GJ-18-AT-8649 came driving his Truck with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed on front side of the motorcycle and due to the impact, deceased and claimant No.1 fell down and wheel of Eicher Truck rolled over the head and chest of Darshan Pandya (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) and he died on the spot, while claimant No.1 sustained injuries on various parts of her body. Pursuant to the accident, offence being I-CR No.38/2018 came to be registered with Pethapur Police Station. The original claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed MACP No.30/2018 seeking compensation.

[3.1] After appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by holding 80% negligence on the part of driver of Eicher Truck and 20% contributory negligence on the part of deceased motorcyclist and awarded the compensation. Howover, the appellant herein – insurance company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation to the claimants.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation to the claimants and committed an error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.2,61,000/- per annum though there was no any evidence or bank account statement to that effect. He has further submitted that income tax returns for the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 were filed which raise doubt and same were filed with a view to show higher income of the deceased, only with a view to get higher amount of compensation and hence, he has requested to consider minimum wages. He has further submitted that wife of deceased has re-married and hence, deduction towards dependency ought to have been done at 1/2 instead of 1/3 and hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

[5.0] Herein, there is no challenge to the negligence and only quantum of compensation is disputed and as involvement of vehicle, coverage of risk is not in question, present appeal is considered in narrow compass.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perusing the evidence on record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the chief examination of claimant No.1 (Exh.24), complaint (Exh.28) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.29) and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt, the learned Tribunal has come to