ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.14741/2022, an application seeking permission to amend the valuation and accordingly to pay Court fee.

2. fee of Rs.52,500/- and in support of the said submission he has filed a copy of Online Court Fee Cyber Receipt along with the application, therefore, the Court fee may be taken on record.

3.

fee is taken on record.

4. Act, 1988 is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 02.11.2010 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in MACC No.261/2009 (Shankarlal and another Vs. Duli and others) on the ground that firstly, multiplier is wrongly calculated on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Secondly, Future Prospect has not been taken into consideration. Thirdly, meager amounts under non-pecuniary heads have been awarded. Fourthly, finding of contributory negligence is cryptic inasmuch merely accident taking place when two vehicles are moving in opposite directions, is not a sufficient fact to deduce finding of contributory negligence. Insurance company had not led any evidence to prove the factum of contributory negligence. Fifthly, it is submitted that Income Tax return (Ex.AC- 12) was produced on record, which is dated 07.08.2009, whereas accident had taken place on 13.10.2009, therefore, Tribunal should have considered this income tax return while computing income of the deceased.

5. change of multiplier, no further indulgence is required. Shri Pandey submits that as per the Driving Licence, age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 28 years and not 25 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable and not that of 18.

6 . Insurance Company that the deceased is not a Government servant, therefore, incorrect multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal.

7. record, it is evident that even spot map is not available on record. Without the help of the spot map and evidence of the person who prepared the spot map or evidence of any eye witness, factum of contributory negligence merely because two vehicles collided head on, is not a finding based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, such finding being cryptic, deserves to be set aside and is set aside.

8. Government servant, therefore, incorrect multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal is concerned, this ground raised by the Insurance Company is prima Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is categorical and crystal clear. It was delivered in the year 2009. Appeal was filed in the year 2011. Multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the deceased. It has no connection with the occupation of the deceased. Thus, cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company being frivolous, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

9 . Government, should detach from filing such frivolous cross-objections in future as it results in wastage of precious time of the Court and also precious resources of the Insurance Company, which are built up on the money of the tax payers.

10. income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- per annum. It has come on record that deceased Rajesh was 25 years of age. He was having a Namkeen Manufacturing unit and Bidi manufacturing unit. Income Tax Return (Ex.AC-12) is dated 07.08.2009 i.e. prior to the date of the accident. There is no reason to disbelieve this income tax return especially when it was filed prior to the accident. Nobody apprehends that he has to die tomorrow and will file income tax return showing exaggerated income with a view to facilitate claim. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal in disbelieving the Income tax return, which was admittedly filed prior to the date of the accident, cannot be accepted and deserves to be set aside and is set aside.

11. of the deceased is shown as Rs.1,95,780/-. For the financial year 2009-10 income upto Rs.1,60,000/- was exempted from payment of income tax. Thereafter, upto Rs.3,00,000/-, 10% income tax is payable. Thus, the total income tax liability comes