The reliance on unchallenged Income Tax Returns for determining the deceased's income is valid, leading to a reduction of compensation from Rs.71,17,080 to Rs.68,70,000.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The appellant, namely the Insurance Company, which figured as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in M.C.O.P. No. 321 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, has preferred the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2025.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The case of the claimants is that one Daniel Rathnasingh met with a fatal accident on 07.11.2021 while he was travelling in his car bearing Registration No. TN-14-E-5146. At that time, the vehicle insured with the appellant, bearing Registration No.TN-63-AY-1122, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s vehicle. Due to the impact, the said Daniel Rathnasingh sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Consequently, a case in Crime No. 232 of 2021 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Case of the Claimants

The legal heirs of the deceased filed M.C.O.P. No. 321 of 2022 before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. In the claim petition, it was averred that the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of the accident and was engaged in multiple businesses, namely, an offset press, photo studio, video studio, e-seva centre, and an ice cream parlour, and was earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month.

4 . Defence of the Insurance Company:

The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying the manner of the accident and contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence. It was further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs. P1 to P7. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

5. Findings of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, fixed the negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs.71,17,080/-, taking into account the Income Tax Returns of the deceased marked as Ex.P5 and fixing the monthly income at Rs.41,471/-, under the following heads:

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. It is pertinent to note that the appellants does not dispute the finding on negligence or liability, but challenges only the quantum of compensation awarded.

7. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant :

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased based on the basis income tax returns without examining the auditor who prepared the same. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ramya v. National Insurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 2022), wherein it was held that in the absence of proper proof, including examination of the auditor, income tax returns cannot be relied upon to conclusively determine income. It was further contended that the income tax returns pertain to the assessment years during the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which business activities were severely impacted. Therefore, the income reflected therein cannot be taken as a reliable basis for determining the earning capacity of the deceased. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought reduction of the compensation.

8. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents / Claimants:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the judgment relied upon by the appellant would apply only in cases where there is contra evidence or serious dispute regard