IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 2257 of 2025 SMT ROOPAL MISHRA AND OTHERS Versus RAJENDRA BURMAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sushil Giri Goswami - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Vaibhav Jain - Advocate for respondent no.3.

ORDER The instant review petition has been filed seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in M.A. 3341/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 6,10,000/- to Rs. 8,66,000/-.

2. The grievance of the review petitioner is that while deciding the appeal, this Court inadvertently overlooked the Income Tax Return duly exhibited on record, which reflects that the deceased had an annual income of Rs. 1,71,880/- for the assessment year 2012-13, Rs. 2,18,240/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs. 2,18,220/- for the assessment year 2014- 2015 was per annum., filed prior to the accident. It is contended that non- consideration of this material document has resulted in an error apparent error on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition submitting that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while not considering the income of deceased on the basis of Income Tax Return as same do not disclose the source of income and there is mismatch in name of deceased to ascertain the fact indeed the deceased was earning through Shandilya Coaching Classes as claimed by the claimants.

4. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the aforesaid Income Tax Returns were filed prior to the accident and were duly proved before the Tribunal. However, while enhancing the compensation by order dated 14.11.2025, the income disclosed therein was not taken into account. Such omission of a vital and material document has materially affected the determination of compensation. It is settled principle of law that income reflected in the Income Tax Return filed prior to the accident is a valid basis for determining income, even if the source of such income is not elaborately mentioned, unless the return is shown to be doubtful or manipulated.

5. Accordingly, the income mentioned in the Income Tax Return can be safely taken into consideration for calculating compensation, notwithstanding the absence of a detailed mention of the source of income in the return form, provided the return is genuine and filed in the ordinary course prior to the accident.

6. The judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in M.A. No.

3341/2018 is hereby recalled.

7. Since the relevant material is already available on record and no further evidence is required, this Court proceeds to re-determine the compensation in accordance with settled principles governing motor accident claims.

8. The income of the deceased is assessed by taking the average of three years' Income Tax Returns, which is a judicially accepted method where income varies from year to year and therefore, it would be Rs.

2,02,780/- per annum [(1,71,880+2,18,240+2,18,220)/3 = Rs.2,02,780/−]

9. Thus, the average annual income of the deceased is taken at Rs.

2,02,780/-.

10. The deceased was 38 years of age at the time of the accident. In view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi { 2017(16) SCC 680}, 40% addition towards future prospects is applicable and accordingly the amount would come to Rs. 2,83,892/− per annum. The deceased is survived by wife and daughter. Therefore, 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses is applied and amount would come down to Rs. 1,89,261/- per annum. Further, as per Sarla Verma v. DTC { (2009) 6 SCC 121}, for the age group of 36-40 years, the appropriate multiplier is 15 and thus amount would come to Rs. 28,38,915/- (1,89,261/- x 15=28,38,915/-).

11. The claimants are further entitled to compensation Rs. 40,000/-

under Spousal conso