[2025:RJ-JP:26501] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10181/2025 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Office 4, Hathroi Fort, 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Gopal Bari, Ajmer Road Jaipur- 302001 Through Branch Manager Ph. No. 01415151300 (Insurance Company Vehicle Swift Dzier No Rj-2 Cc 1573 Validity Date 10/09/2022 To 09/09/2023- Through Its Constituent Attorney. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vijay Kumar S/o Mangilal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Sultana, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan Through Next Friend His Wife Smt. Punita Devi Gupta W/o Vijay Kumar, Age 45 Year R/o Sultana, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. 2. Hawa Singh S/o Shri Manphool Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Makhar Ki Dhanni, Police Station Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan (Driver Vehicle Swift Dzier No Rj -2 Cc 1573) 3. Pradhan Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Desusar, Police Station Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. (Registered Owner Vehicle Swift Dzier No Rj-2 Cc 1573) 4. Sunil Swami S/o Shri Sawarmal Swami, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sultana, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. (Through Sale Agreement Owner Vehicle Swift Dzier No Rj-2 Cc 1573) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/07/2025 The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioner against the order [2025:RJ-JP:26501] (2 of 3) [CW-10181/2025] dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in claim case No.9/2024 whereby application filed by the petitioner for summoning the income tax returns of the claimant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these returns are essential to assess the income after alleged incident for just decision of the case. Counsel submits that learned trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that said documents may be procured by the petitioner from the income tax office. Counsel submits that personal documents of the injured cannot be procured by the petitioner as same is not permissible due to privacy law and confidentiality regulations. Counsel further places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. versus Jasbir Kaur & Ors. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, income has to be established by the claimant himself in the claim petition producing the cogent evidence and if he fails to produce the evidence then learned Tribunal will pass the judgment according to the material available on record. Furthermore, in my considered opinion, income tax return of the injured after alleged incident is not essential for just decision of the case and so far the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, careful reading of the judgment would reveal that same was passed in the different factual matrix where [2025:RJ-JP:26501] (3 of 3) [CW-10181/2025] land of the deceased was in possession of the claimants as his legal heirs. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (Raj.). Accordingly, this Civil Writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application and pending application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /104