[2025:RJ-JP:17698] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4976/2009 1. Smt. Sayar w/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Gaina, aged 29 years 2.Pooja d/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Gaina, aged 9 years 3.Kamal s/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Gaina, aged 7 years 4.Avinash s/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Gaina, aged 5 years Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Sayar w/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Gaina r/o Gram or Post Taliji via Saradhana, District Ajmer ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Ramkaran s/o Shri Ramsahaye Mina, aged 45 years, r/o village angari, police station thanagaji, district alwar, presently resident of 15 Mina Colony, outside gangapole gate Jaipur District Jaipur (Vehicle Owner) 2. Goverdhan Mina s/o Shri Ramsahaye Mina, aged 38 years r/o village angari, police station thanagaji, district alwar, presently R/o 15 Mina colony, outside gangapole gate Jaipur, District Jaipur. (Vehicle Driver) 3. Royal Sunder Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Ganpati Plaza, MI Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg with Mr. Pranjal Mundhra, Ms. Devyanshi Goel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Rathore with Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 25/04/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2009 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and learned Additional District Judge Fast Track No.4, Ajmer in case No.185/2007 (643/2006) titled as "Smt. Sayar & Ors. Vs. Ramkaran & Ors.", whereby the claim petition [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (2 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 27.06.2006, the husband of appellant No.1 was traveling with his friends from Jaipur to Ajmer, suddenly the respondent No.1, who was negligently driving his truck, dashed into the vehicle in which the husband of appellant No.1 was sitting. As a result of the accident, he died on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years old and was engaged in the business of transportation and agricultural work. It was further pleaded that the deceased’s income was Rs.84,000/- per annum in the financial year 2004-05 and Rs.1,26,000/- per annum in the year 2005-06. Accordingly, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.68,94,000/-. 3. After service upon the respondents, respondents No.1 and 2, namely Ramkaran and Goverdhan Meena, did not file a reply. 4. That the Respondent No.3-the Insurance Company, filed its response and denied the averments made in the claim petition, praying for its dismissal. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues: 1- vk;k fnukad 27-06-2006 dks iz'uxr okgu Vªd la- vkj-ts&14&1th&9787 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ la- ,d jkedj.k }kjk okgu dks lkoZtfud LFky ij rstxfr o vlko/kkuh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ ftlds dkj.k cyohj flag iq= 'kadjyky] efgiky iq= 'kadjyky] jktsUnz flag] 'kadjyky] lq[knso iq= mxek ,oa gjhflag iq= Nksxkyky dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ \ 2- vk;k vizkFkhZ la-1 iz'uxr okgu la- vkj-ts-&14&1th&9787 dks oDr nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la- 2 ds fu;kstu o fgrkFkZ pyk jgk Fkk \ [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (3 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k] vizkFkhZx.k ls dze'k% vkosnu i= la- 97@07 esa 57]55]000@&:i;s ¼lRrkou yk[k ipiu gtkj :½ vkosnu i= la- 184@07 esa 50]75]000@&:i;s ¼ipkl yk[k fipgRrj gtkj :½ vkosnu i= la- 185@07 esa 68]94]000@&:i;s ¼vMl< yk[k pkSjkuos gtkj :i;s½ vkosnu i= la- 186@07 esa 61]15]000@&:i;s ¼bdlB yk[k iUnzg gtkj :i;s½ ,oa vkosnu i= la- 187@07 esa 24]25]000@&:i;s ¼pkSchl yk[k iPphl gtkj :½ dh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gS rks fdl&fdl vizkFkhZ ds lkFk fdruh&fdruh jkf'k \ 4- vk;k vizkFkhZ la- 3 ds tokc nkok dh pj.k la- 24] 26 ls 32 esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls og mRrjnk;h ugha gS \ 5- vuqrks"kA 6. It is pertinent to mention that in the impugned order, number of claim petitions were clubbed together. However, for the purpose of the present appeal, the discussion pertains solely to Claim Petition No.185/2007, relating to the death of Rajendra Singh. 7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined AW.5- Smt. Sayar and AW.7 - Surendra Somani, Chartered Accountant of the deceased, and relied upon several documents including Exhibit-60 (Income Tax Return dated 22.04.2005 showing income as Rs.84,000/-) and Exhibit-61 (Income Tax Return dated 21.07.2006 showing income as Rs.1,26,000/-), along with other exhibited Nos.1 to 66. 8. Despite being granted opportunities, the non-claimants did not lead any evidence. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, decided Claim Petition No.185/2007. The Tribunal, while determining compensation, accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.84,000/- per annum (as per Exhibit-60) and accordingly [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (4 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] awarded compensation of Rs.9,74,000/. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned MACT Court erred in awarding compensation by considering the income of the deceased as Rs.84,000/- per annum, whereas as per Exhibit-61, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered as Rs.1,26,000/-. He further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly disbelieved Exhibit-61 merely because it was filed after the death of the deceased and due to variation in the signatures. He further contended that a deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.23,233/- was made evidencing higher income. He further contended that the deceased, being engaged in transportation business, was entitled to presumptive taxation under Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act and possessed three vehicles, thus justifying higher income. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Anjali Vs. Lokendra Rathod reported in AIR 2023 SCC 44, Rukmani Jethani & Ors. Vs. Gopal Singh & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3496 and a judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the matter of The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. West INN Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.1980/2008). 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence and passed a well-reasoned award, requiring no interference. Learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (5 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] Insurance Company submitted that since the deceased had expired on 27.06.2006 and Exhibit-61 was filed subsequently on 21.07.2006 under allegedly forged signatures, the said document could not be relied upon to establish the income of deceased as Rs.1,26,000/-. Further, there is a significant variation in the signatures on Exhibit-60 (signed in Hindi) and Exhibit-61 (signed in English), casting serious doubt about its authenticity. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The first argument of the appellant pertains regarding discarding the Income tax return Ex- 61 being filed after the death. It is evident from record that Ex-61 (1,26,000) was discarded not merely that it has been filed after the death of the deceased rather the same was disbelieved because the deceased expired on 27.06.2006 and the said income tax return was verified and filed on 21.07.2006 under the signature of a dead person ; Further there is a significant change of signature as all the previous returns were filed with signature in Hindi only and this return Ex-61 was filed with fake signature in English. More over, no corroborative evidence was produced to establish that the deceased ever signed in English except over Ex.61. Hence, the learned Tribunal rightly disbelieved Exhibit-61 and determined the compensation on the basis of last Income-Tax-Return, Exhibit-60 (Rs.84,000/-). Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in disbelieving Exhibit-61 are just and proper. 14. As regards the judgments cited by the appellants, in the matters Smt. Anjali (supra), Rukmani Jethani & Ors. (supra) & The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), there is no [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (6 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] quarrel on the legal propositions laid down in the said judgments but, they are distinguishable on facts considering the serious doubts about the authenticity of Exhibit-61 verified and filed on 21.07.2006 under the fake signature of deceased who expired on 27.06.2006. As regard to the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the income of deceased should have been presumed higher under Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act is also not sustainable in the absence of any corroborative documentary proof as such the said argument also lacks merit, even otherwise, none of the Income Tax Returns are corroborating with such argument. The another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.23,233/-, is a proof of higher income is also unfounded for the reason that ITR (Ex-61) so produced is not in consonance with the same. Thus, said argument is also of no avail because sometimes TDS pertain to income earned in a different financial years or deducted due to dividends etc. Thus, this argument also lacks merit. Last, argument regarding enhancement of compensation based on the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court finds that while the documentary evidence regarding higher income is doubtful, still, considering the income of deceased as Rs.84,000/- per annum as Exhibit-60, the future prospects loss of consortium, love and affection etc needs to be revised. In the light of the judgment in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the award passed by the learned MACT Court is liable to be modified to the following extent: [2025:RJ-JP:17698] (7 of 7) [CMA-4976/2009] Annual income Rs.84,000/- Income with multiplier of 16 Rs.84,000/- x 16 = Rs.13,44,000/- Less:1/4 deduction (Personal Expenses) Rs. 13,44,000/- x3/4=Rs.10,08,000/- Future Prospects(+) 40% Rs.14,11,200/- (10,08,000+4,03,200) Loss of Consortium(+) Rs.40,000/-x 4=Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,01,200/- Already awarded amount(-) under impugned order Rs.9,74,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,601,200/- – Rs.9,74,000/-= Rs.6,27,200/- 15. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT Court below is modified by enhancing to Rs.16,01,200/- from the original amount of Rs.9,74,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.6,27,200/- before the learned concerned MACT Court within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs. 6,27,200/- at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as indicated above with no order as to costs. 17. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/72