##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

I. FAO-2714-2023 (O&M)

Rekha Gupta and others

. . . . Appellants

Vs.

TATA AIG General Insurance Company and others

. . . . Respondents

****

II. FAO-5427-2023 (O&M)

TATA AIG General Insurance Company

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Rekha Gupta and others

. . . . Respondents

****

Reserved on:13.05.2026

Pronounced on: 15.05.2026

Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,

for the appellants in FAO-2714-2023

for respondents No.1 to 4 in FAO-5427-2023

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Both the appeals arise out of the common award dated

24.03.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, in

a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of

death of Raj Kumar in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Briefly stated, Raj Kumar suffered fatal injuries in a motor

vehicular accident, which occurred on 15.01.2021 near Raji Radio, Jakhal

Road, Patran, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No.PB-72A-

5940, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, struck

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 15:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-2714 & 5427-2023 2026:PHHC:076685

the motorcycle being driven by the deceased. The injured was initially shifted

to various hospitals and ultimately succumbed to the injuries during

treatment. FIR regarding the occurrence was registered against respondent

No.2 at Police Station Patran.

3. The claim petition was filed by the widow and children of the

deceased claiming compensation to the tune of ₹70,00,000/- on the plea that

the deceased was engaged in agriculture, brick kiln business and cloth

business and was earning approximately ₹1,00,000/- per month.

4. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to contest

the proceedings and were proceeded against ex parte. The insurance

company alone contested the claim petition.

5. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the learned

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of ₹50,82,600/- along with

interest to the claimants.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, both sides have preferred

the present appeals. The claimants seek enhancement of compensation,

whereas the insurance company seeks reduction thereof primarily on the

ground that the income tax liability of the deceased has not been deducted

while computing the compensation.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record carefully.

8. At the outset, it deserves notice that the findings recorded by the

learned Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

have attained finality, as the same have not been assailed before this Court.

Similarly, the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured also remains

undisputed. Consequently, the controversy in the present appeals is confined

only to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 15:05

I attest to the accuracy and Page 2 of 6

integrity of this document

FAO-2714 & 5427-2023 2026:PHHC:076685

9. In order to establish the income of the deceased, the claimants

relied upon Income Tax Returns Ex.C10 and Ex.C11 pertaining to Assessment

Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. Ex.C10 had admittedly been filed by

the deceased during his lifetime, whereas Ex.C11 came to be filed after his

death.

10. A perusal of the aforesaid returns reveals that for the Assessment

Year 2020-21, the total income of the deceased was ₹7,23,984/- and the tax

liability discharged thereupon was ₹95,722/-. Likewise, for Assessment Year

2021-22, the income reflected was ₹6,31,650/- and the corresponding tax

liability was ₹44,227/-. Though Ex.C11 was filed after the death of Raj Kumar,

the same cannot be discarded merely for that reason once it stood accepted

by the Income Tax Department