Income tax returns are statutory documents; for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, the latest income tax return can be used as a benchmark for income instead of a multi-year average, as the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.09.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhuj, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.222/2003, the appellants –original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2. Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants – original Claimants. Though served, none appears for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.06.2002, the deceased along with other persons were going to Gandhinagar in Maruti Car bearing No.GJ-12-P-1203 which was driving by Vinod Manilal Veghad on the left side of the road and when they reached near Nani Chirai village, at that time, one Truck bearing No.MH-04-AL-5393 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Maruti car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,68,200/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.

4. The appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum and no further issue qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore, learned counsel for the claimant has mainly argued that, the Tribunal has erred in considering average income of the deceased as Rs.82,270/- per annum though the income tax returns are filed and claimants having sufÏcient proof of income of the deceased, however, the Tribunal has discarded such documentary evidence and without assigning any reason, assessed his annual income as Rs.82,270/- based on last income tax returns. It is also submitted that the deceased was partner in one Hotel Payal at Anjar and was earning Rs.25,000/- per annum. He was also serving as a Manager in Shivam Traders and getting salary of Rs.1,17,000/- per annum and also doing agriculture work and brokerage work. Thereby, the deceased was having three sources of income and his overall yearly income was of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

5. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.1 has filed an AfÏdavit at Exh:31, FIR at Exh:32, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:33, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:49, PM report at Exh:47, partnership deed of Hotel Payal at Exh:38, salary certificate issued by Shivam Traders at Exh:39 and Forms No.2D of Assessment years of 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand , reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635.

Further, without producing any congent evidence qua the age of the deceased, his years was considered as 42 years as per the claim petition and PM report which