Income tax returns filed shortly after an accident are admissible as evidence of income if consistent with prior records. Compensation must be just and fair, calculated by averaging income over multiple years and applying standardized multipliers and conventional head deductions.

JUDGMENT

Heard Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned advocate on record for the appellant- New India Assurance Co Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “the Insurance Company”). Learned advocate Mr. Archan K. Hirpara has appeared on behalf of Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned advocate for respondents nos. 1 and 2- original claimants. The record suggests that the notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon respondents Nos. 3, 4 5, 6, and 7; however, no appearance has been entered on their behalf.

With the able assistance of learned advocates for the respective parties, the appeal is finally heard and decided.

The present appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No.201 of 2000.

By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs. 14,74,980/- from the original opponents nos. 1 to 7, jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, with proportionate costs. Thus, the Insurance Company, being aggrieved, has preferred the present appeal.

Before considering the controversy involved in the present appeal, it would be appropriate to reconsider the manner, in which, the accident was reported;

On 30.05.1999, the deceased- Nanjibhai Devshibahi Patel was travelling along with his family members, and was driving his Maruti Car bearing registration no. GJ-10-F-600 with moderate speed and on the correct side of the road by following Traffic Rules. At around 9:45 a.m., when he had reached near Dilaver Nagar, Junagadh-Vanthli Road, the driver of the truck bearing registration no.GR-P-5959 going ahead had suddenly stopped his truck. As a result, the deceased had also stopped his Car. At the same time, one another truck bearing registration no. GJ-12-T-6928, following the Car, had dashed the Car from the backside with full speed. As a result of the impact, the Maruti Car had also crushed into the truck ahead bearing registration no.GR-P-5959. Because of the impact of both the trucks, the Maruti car was pressed between the aforesaid vehicles, resulting into the accident. The deceased sitting in driver seat had sustained fatal injuries, which had resulted into his death on the spot. The aforesaid incident was reported to the Vanthli Police Station, which was registered as an FIR being I-C.R. No. 66 of 1999.

The original claimants, which include the wife of the deceased and his major son, had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, praying for compensation of sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with proportionate costs. The claim petition was presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar, on 02.03.2000, which was registered as M.A.C.P. No. 201 of 2000.

Before the Claim Tribunal, the notice issued upon the original opponents was duly served; however, opponents nos. 2, 4, and 5, who were the owners and drivers of the respective trucks involved, have chosen not to enter the appearance or to submit their written statements, whereas opponent nos. 1 namely the driver of the truck bearing registration no. GJ-12-T-6928, had submitted his written statement at Exh. 28 and the Insurance Company of the truck bearing registration no. GJ-12-T-6928 (opponent no.3) and GRP-5959 (opponent no.7) have submitted their joint written statement at Exh. 20. Whereas opponent no. 6 i.e. the owner of the truck bearing registration no. GRP-5959 has submitted written statement at Exh.31.

In the w