1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 789 of 2020 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office, 3rd Floor Gurukripa Tower Near Icici Bank Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Inderjeet Gupta S/o Late Motilal Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Shobha Devi W/o Inderjeet Gupta Aged About 58 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bharti Gupta D/o Inderjeet Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Arti Gupta D/o Inderjeet Gupta Aged About 20 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sandip Gupta S/o Inderjeet Gupta Aged About 17 Years Minor He Is Through His Father Inderjeet Gupta, R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Prashant Giri Goshwami S/o Chandergiri Goshwami R/o Village Kosa Panditrai District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shristy Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 29.08.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellant/insurance company, being aggrieved by the award dated 01.02.2020 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.09 17:42:33 +0530 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 275/2018. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 35,17,762/- to the respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants, on account of the death of Rakesh Gupta in an accident that took place on 16.02.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing Registration No. CG-25-D-6044 by respondent No.6 driver cum owner and insured with appellant/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died in hospital during treatment. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal relied upon the income tax return filed by the deceased and thus relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121, assessed the compensation holding his yearly income to be Rs 2,68,870/- relying the income tax return of the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 and thus calculated the compensation and awarded the same. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Rakesh Gupta was aged about 25 years and was doing business of whole sale fruit and earning a monthly income of Rs. 50,000 to 60,000/-. The respondent No. 1 to 5/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 6 filed his written statement and denied the averment of the facts. Appellant /Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 3 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 6 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the respondent No. 1 to 5/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the sole ground raised in this appeal is that the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on the income tax returns of the deceased is erroneous in law. It is contended that an income tax return, by itself, cannot be treated as proof of income, and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be reduced. 7) Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants, on the other hand, supports the award and submits that the deceased was engaged in the business of fruit vending and was regularly filing income tax returns, which have been duly proved on record. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the said returns for assessing the income of the deceased. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 9) Admittedly, the income tax returns filed and proved by respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants formed the basis of assessment of the income of the deceased. The contention that such returns cannot form the basis for determining the income of the deceased is untenable and is liable to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in case of Malarvizhi & Ors Vs. United India reported in AIR 2020 SC 90. 10) Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari