Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'appellant') under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2019, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No.102/2015 (CIS No.0607/2015), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 3 (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 29.10.2014, at around 9-9:30 AM, Dr. Biharilal Jethwani (since deceased), along with Ravindra Nayak, was travelling in Innova Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-UA-4870, being driven by Ravindra Nayak. When they reached near village Thikariya, a bus bearing registration No.RJ-23-PA-6967, being driven by respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and hit the car, resulting into death of Dr. Biharilal Jethwani.

4. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.20,31,370/-, in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal solely on the ground that the learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, relied upon the Income Tax Returns (for short 'ITR') of the deceased, with which profit and loss accounts were not enclosed, to determine his annual income. It is submitted that in the absence of profit and loss accounts, the ITR of the deceased ought not to have been relied upon.

5.1 No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant.

6. From a bare perusal of the record and the impugned judgment and award, it is revealed that the deceased was working as a doctor.

The claimants submitted ITR of the deceased alongwith the computation of income, for the assessment year (for short ‘AY’) 2012-2013 (Ex-113), AY 2013-2014 (Ex-114) & AY 2014-2015 (Ex-115). While assessing the annual income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal computed the same at Rs.4,60,860/- after taking average of the income reflected in ITR for the AY 2012-2013 & AY 2013-2014.

7. The issue as to whether the assessment of the income of the deceased can be made on the basis of ITR is no longer res integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager reported in 2025 ACJ 1126, has already propounded that ITR is a legally admissible document on which the income assessment of the deceased could be made. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

“The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible document on which the income assessment of the deceased could be made. This Court in Malarvizhi v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 affirmed that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory document. In S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182, we opined:

‘11. …It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 [Para 17]; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Para 7], and K Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338].’ (emphasis supplied)”

8. In the instant case, the claimants not only pro