1 2025:CGHC:16765 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1182 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sarita W/o Late Satish Kumar Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Aazad Nagar, Beergaon, Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lalit Kumar S/o Neer Singh Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o Aazad Nagar, Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Iswari Bai W/o Lalit Kumar Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Aazad Nagar, Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Manju D/o Lalit Kumar Verma Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Gaurdian Father Shri Lalit Kumar Verma S/o Neer Singh Verma R/o Aazad Nagar, Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Abdul Rouf S/o Abdul Aziz Throughabdul Salam, S/o Abdul Aziz H.No. 265 Tulapur, Tao Abdulpur, Tahsil Sora, District Allahabad Uttar Pradesh. (Driver of Truck No. U.P. 70-E. T.- 4650). 2 - Abdul Salam S/o Abdul Aziz H.No. 265 Tulapur, Tao Abdulpur, Tahsil Sora, District Allahabad Uttar Pradesh. (Owner Of Truck No. U.P. 70-E. T.-4650). A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd through Divisional Manager, (Division No.2,) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Behind LiC Office Pandari Raipur, Police Station Pandari Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Truck No. U.P. 70 E.T. 4650)... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : None For respondent no.3 : Mr. Quamrul Aziz, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 27.03.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No 786/2016. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 13,55,200/-- as compensation to the claimants due to death of deceased Satish Kumar Verma by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 driver of offending vehicle. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants are the wife, sister and parents of the deceased Satish Kumar Verma. On 09.08.2016 when the deceased 3 was going on his motorcycle, on the way, at about 11.30, Respondent no1 who was driving the Truck bearing Regn. No.UP 70 ET/4650 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in hospital where he died. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 owner and insured with respondent no.3 /Insurance company. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.59,19,800/-. on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on a scrutiny of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, took the yearly income of the deceased as Rs.72000/- (Rs.6000 per month), after adding 40% future prospectus to the income, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and thus worked out the total loss of income to Rs.12,85,200/-. Further more, Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded on conventional heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. Rs.13,55,200/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realisation. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and needs enhancement. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the annual income of deceased to be Rs.2,50,000/- as he was doing the job of teacher and conducting coaching classes but the learned Claims Tribunal has held the income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month i.e., 72000/- per year and awarded total compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- 4 including the amount of Rs.70000/- under other conventional heads. He submits that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered the Income Tax Return (Ex.P-30) wherein the annual income of the deceased was shown as Rs.2,62,000/-, however, it took the income of deceased as Rs.72000/- therefore, the appellants are deprived of just compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amounts on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the award and submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted a reasonable compensation which needs no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per year by doing the job of teacher and also by conducting the coaching classes. The educational Certificates cumulatively filed by the claimants vide Ex.P-14 to P-29 clearly go to show that the deceased was well educated as he did Post-graduate course in M.Com. and M.B.A. The I.T. Returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2015- 5 2016 are placed on record vide Ex. 30 & Ex.P-31. The Income Tax Inspector Vijay Kumar (A.W.3) who proved those documents has stated that on the basis of the details given in IT Return (Ex.P-30) filed by the deceased, his income towards wages was Rs.72,000/- and further income from other sources was Rs.1,90,000/- and thus his total income was Rs.2,62,000/-. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Anjali Versus Lokendra Rathod AIR 2023 SC 44 held that the deceased’s Income Tax Returns can be considered for computing his annual income in motor accident compensation claim cases. Para-9 of the said decision is relevant and quoted below : “9. The Tribunal and High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased’s income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Returns (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in Malarvizhi and ors. (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (supra), this Court has laid as under : 10. ….We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased.” Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased’s annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/0, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased’s Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, since the filing of IT Return (Ex.P-30) by the 6 deceased showing the income details is not denied by Income Tax Inspector (A.W.3), I find it appropriate to take the annual income of deceased as Rs.2,62,000/- on the basis of I.T. Return filed by deceased (Ex.P-30). As regards future prospects, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e.,1,04,800/- the total yearly income would come to Rs.3,66,800/- (Rs.2,62,000 plus 1,04,800/-). 9. As per the income tax slab for the assessment year 2016-2017, tax was exempted upto the income of Rs.2,50,000/- and from above Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,00/-, 10% tax was levied. Therefore, the taxable income comes to Rs.1,16,800/- (3,66,800 minus 2,50,000) and the tax payable on 1,16,800/- comes to Rs.11,680/-. After deducting the tax, the net yearly income would come to Rs.3,55,120/- (Rs.3,66,800 minus 11,680/-). 10. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was stated to be 30 years and there are total 4 dependents i.e., wife, parents and unmarried sister of the deceased. So the deduction towards personal expenses would be one-fourth and the annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,66,340/- (Rs 3,55,120 minus 88,780). In view of decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC l2l and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of deceased, multiplier 17 is applied to assess the total loss of dependency which comes to Rs. Rs.45,27,780/- ( 2,66,340 x 17). In 7 addition, on conventional heads, the claimants are further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, AIR Online 2018 SC, each dependent/claimant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection. Hence the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs.47,17,780/-. In view of the above , this Court is computing the compensation in the following manner : 01. Total loss of dependency or total loss of income Rs.45,27,780/- 02 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03. Loss of love and affection or loss of consortium ( Rs.40000 x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/- 04. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.47,17,780/- 11. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs 47,17,780/- from which after deduction of Rs. 13,55,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 33,62,580/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount 8 awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao 9 MAC No. 1182 of 2019 (Smt. Sarita & others Versus Abdul Rouf and others) Head-Note The deceased’s Income Tax Returns can be considered for computing his annual income in motor accident compensation claim cases. मोटर दु्ቈ टना ्ቌतिपूቔኌ दावा मामलों में मृक की वाቧኌक आय की गणना के लिलए उसके आयकर रिरटन पर विवचार विकया जा सका है।