29.7.2026 Ct. no. 9 SL. 6 Samarpita In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) FMA 1316 of 2025 Rebeka Sultana & Ors. VS Tata Aig General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Mr. Krishanu Banik, Mr. Tathagata Banik … for the Appellants/Claimants Mr. Rajesh Singh … for the Respondent/Insurance Company 1. Learned advocates for the parties are present. 2. The appellants before this Court were claimants in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is aggrieved by the judgement and award dated April 24 of 2025, passed by learned additional District and session Judge, Fast Track Court, Suri Birbhum, in MAC Case No. 223 of 2022. The case of the appellants/claimants may be summed up thus. 3. On 16.6.2022, at about 12:30 Hrs. when victim Sahil Moula was proceeding towards Nakpur Check post by riding his motor-cycle being WB 46 H-3989 and when reached near at Tilora More, at that time one lorry being No. WB 93- 0716 (Lorry) dashed his motor-cycle. As a 2 result, the victim sustained serious injury. The accident occurred to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry bearing no. WB 93-0716 (Lorry) and the petitioners have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. 4. Pursuant to filing of the case, notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not appear to contest the case. The opposite party, Insurance Company, contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidences were adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon perusing the evidence and upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties was pleased to disposed of the claim application by observing and directing as follows: “Hence, it is, ORDERED that, the claim petition U/s. 166 of the M.V. Act is allowed on contest against the O.P.No.2 i.e. TATA AIG Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. and allowed exparte against O.P.No.1 with costs. The O.P.No.1 and O.P. No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 and 3 do hereby get an award for Rs.14,60,472/-only as compensation and interest on the above @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 3 from the date of filing of this application i.e. from 29.06.22 till realization of the awarded amount. The O.P.No.2 i.e. TATA AIG Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.14,60,472/- only along with accrued interest as mentioned above, by issuing three account payee cheques to tune of Rs.4,86,824/-each in favour of the claimants within thirty days from the date of delivery of Judgment. Failing which the O.P. No.2 will have to pay further interest @ 10% p.a. upon the awarded amount from the date of expiry of thirty days till realization of the awarded amount. In default, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law. The claimants/petitioners are directed to pay deficit court fees within 15 days from the date of passing Judgment.” 5. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by the learned Trial Court has come up with the instant application. Heard learned advocate for the appellants/claimants and learned advocate for the respondent Insurance Company. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that, the learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the income tax return filed by the claimants with regard to the income of the 4 victim and merely proceeding on the basis of notional income. 6. Learned advocate further submits that the four(04) years income tax return submitted by the victim was filed before the learned Trial Court and necessary particulars were filed therewith which the learned Trial Court failed to consider. 7. Learned advocate also submits that the annual income as per the Income Tax Return is Rs. 4,81,355/- (Four Lakhs Eighty one thousand and Three Fifty Five only) which should be the basis of for computing the compensation. Learned advocate relies upon the following decisions: 1. Smt. Suchitra Ghosh & Ors. vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2024 ACJ 1203 2. Anjali & Ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. reported in 2023 ACJ 637 (SC) 3. Sandhya Rani Jana & Anr. vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. FMA 70 of 2023, High Court at Calcutta 8. Learned advocate for the Insurance company submits that necessary particulars with regard to the business of the victim was not submitted 5 by the claimants for which the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the income tax return, submitted on behalf of the claimants. Learned advocate further submits that the depositions of the income tax authority goes to show that the ITR of victim Sahil Moula, is verified for the assessment year 2018-2019 and rest of the years are presumptive on the basis of which learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion. 9. Learned advocate also submits that unless necessary particulars of the business and accounts and statements are furnished the income of the victim cannot be ascertained. 10. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned advocates the decision of the learned Trial Judge and the decision relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties. It is held in different judicial pronouncements that income tax return is the authentic document on the basis of which Motor Accident Claim Tribunals can decide the income of an affected party and compensation to be awarded. 6 11. In the case of Anjali & Ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 9.The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's Income Tax Return (2009- 2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's annual income to be income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & 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." 2 (2020) 4 SCC 228 Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased's annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased's Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010. 12. In the case of Smt. Suchitra Ghosh & Ors. vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra) it was observed as follows: “The other challenge thrown to the acceptance of income tax return is that it does not pertain to the period just preceding the date of accident. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Kalpanaraj versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 where the only available documentary evidence on record of the monthly income of the deceased was the income tax return filed by with the income tax department and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such circumstances, held that the High Court was correct to determine the monthly income on the basis of the income tax return. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. versus United India Insurance 7 Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 endorse the findings of the High Court that determination must proceed on the basis of 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. I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the claimants relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Smt. Anjali (supra) in this regard. From the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it goes without saying that the income tax return being the statutory document should be relied upon for determining the income of the deceased even though it is the only available documentary evidence. Thus, such challenge thrown to the income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 cannot be accepted. Upon perusal of the income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 (Exhibit-7) it is found that the deceased had income from business to the tune of Rs. 1,71,284/- and the tax paid is nil. Thus, the actual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,71,284/- 13. In the case of Sandhya Rani Jana & Anr. vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) it was observed: “Before proceeding to decide the material in issue it is to be remembered that while considering motor accidents claim the income of a victim who is a salaried person can be ascertained from the salary slip of the victim upon examining his employer. But in case of self employed person the income can be ascertained from his own declaration made before the Income Tax Authority. When returns are filed before the Income Tax Authority necessary particulars of business accounts and copies of Bank Statements are furnished and upon considering the necessary particulars along with declaration the authority decides whether to accept the said return or to seek more particulars. Once Income Tax Return is accepted 8 by the Income Tax Authority it becomes authentic document with regard to the income of the victim. Whether Income Tax Return is accepted by the Authority can be ascertained upon considering the evidence of the officials of Income Tax Authority which is done in this case. When Income Tax Return is not filed it becomes necessary for claimants to furnish Bank Passbooks, and business accounts to corroborate the case of income of the victim but when Income Tax Return is filed and officers of Income Tax Department is examined to verify the same there is no ground to disbelieve the Income Tax Return. This is not a case where the Income Tax Return is filed after instituting the claim case thus there is no question of inflating the income. When the income of a person is assessed by a competent authority it is not necessary for the Court adjudicating motor accident claims to ask for further particulars and sit in review of the assessment already made by such authority when such return is filed during life time of victim and not after instituting the claims case. In the case of Surendar Kaur Singh (supra) this Hon'ble Court observed as follows:- "It will be profitable to refer to Kalpanaraj's Case (supra) where the only available documentary evidence on record of the monthly income of the deceased was the income tax return filed by him with the Income Tax Department and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such circumstances held that the High Court was correct to determine the monthly income on the basis of income tax return. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi's Case (supra) endorsed the finding of the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. In Indiro Devi's 9 Case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with contradiction between the income disclosed in the income tax return and the salary certificate held that in such situation it does not mean that income of the deceased as stated in the income tax return should be totally ignored and it affirmed the finding of the High Court of taking account of the income of the deceased disclosed in the income tax return. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangita Arya's Case (supra) also took account of the income disclosed in the income tax return filed prior to the death of the deceased. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble court, it goes without saying that the income tax return being a statutory document is to be relied for determining the income of the deceased even though it is the only available documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased disclosed in the income tax return for assessment year 2012-2013 has not been discredited by any cogent evidence. I find substance in the submissions of learned advocate for appellant- claimant relying on Anita Sharma's Case (supra) that the standard of proof in claim cases is one of preponderance of probabilities and not of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt rather to analyse whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. Accordingly, the income of the deceased-victim disclosed in the income tax return for the assessment year 2012- 2013 should be taken into consideration. Thus the annual income of the deceased-victim should be gross income of Rs. 2,01,550/- less tax paid of Rs. 2,310/- which comes to Rs. 1,99,240/-." 14. It is true that when income tax return are not filed by any person it become difficult to assess the income of the said person, unless the said person is a government employee or employee of any undertaking from where the pay slips 10 can be furnished. In the event a person is engaged in business and he does not file income tax return it becomes necessary to furnish accounts or bank Pass Book and the trade license. By filing the income tax return and paying necessary taxes goes to show that the income earned by a person is taxable. Hence, the income tax return being an authentic document, courts may not insist on furnishing necessary accounts or particulars with regard to the business specially when the matter relates to Motor Accident claims which is a beneficial legislation. 15. In usual practice when business men furnishes income tax return the necessary accounts are furnished before the Income Tax Authority and are taken into consideration by the Income Tax Authority to assess the income. In the event Income Tax Authority disputes the income tax return necessary notice are issued upon assessee for clarification. 16. In the instant case, the witness as staff from the Income Tax Department and he stated that the income tax return for the year 2018-2019 is verified and the others are presumptive. By 11 using the word “presumptive” does not mean that it is a fictitious document, and no reliance can be placed on it. In all cases when assessment are not complete it has to be stated that the returns are not verified. As the income tax returns were filed prior to the death of the victim there is no scope for presumption that the income is inflated for the purpose of any material gain. 17. Thus upon perusing the observation of the learned Trial Judge and considering the documents filed and the evidence adduced this Court is of the view that documents filed are sufficient for the Court dealing with the Motor Accident Claim cases to ascertain the compensation. Thus this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court should be enhanced. In the event the annual income as per the income tax return is considered as Rs. 4, 81,355/- (Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Three Hundred Fifty Five only) the future prospect of 40% comes to 1,92,542/- (One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand and Five Forty Two only) is added the total income comes 6,73,897/- (Six Lakh 12 Seventy Three Thousand and Eight Ninety Seven only). 1/3rd being deducted on account of personal expanses the net total income comes to Rs. 4,49,265/- (Four Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Two hundred Sixty Five only) which is the annual dependency loss. The multiplier of 18 being applied the total dependency loss comes to Rs. 80,86,770/- (Eighty Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy only). Further the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/-(One Lakh Ten Thousand only) on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, Rs. 81,96,770/- (Eighty one lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Seven hundred Seventy only) is the total compensation which the claimants are entitled as per the arithmetical calculation. However as courts and Tribunal are empowered to award just compensation as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is necessary to consider the judicial decision in this regard. In the case of Anjali & Ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance 13 to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under: "16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit." 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121. 18. Thus the compensation in Motor Accident Claims cannot be a bonanza or meagre compensation. Hence, this court is of the view that although by arithmetic computation the total compensation comes to Rs. 81,96,770/- (Eighty one lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Seven hundred Seventy only) but compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lakhs Only) is just and reasonable. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lakhs Only) from the respondent no.1/Insurance Company along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 14 filing of the case till today the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company shall deposit before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta Rs. 75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lakhs Only) along with the interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date of communication of this order. In the event, compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is already deposited or paid the balance amount to be deposited. The claimants/appellants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of all necessary formalities. 19. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 20. Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary legal formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)