1 CGHC010262082023 2026:CGHC:38937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1425 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, E-8 RIICOI, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E.Road Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Pooja Agrawal W/o Late Shankar Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Marar Para, Kondagaon, Tahsil, P.S. And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)...........Claimant 2 - Sanskar Agrawal S/o Late Shankar Agrawal Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Agrawal, R/o Marar Para, Kondagaon, Tahsil, P.S. And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).............Claimant 3 - Utkarsh Agrawal S/o Late Shankar Agrawal, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Agrawal, R/o Marar Para, Kondagaon, Tahsil, P.S. And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).............Claimant 4 - Umang Agrawal, S/o Late Shankar Agrawal, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Agrawal, R/o Marar Para, Kondagaon, Tahsil, P.S. And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).............Claimant BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.05 15:23:08 +0530 2 5 - Smt. Kusum Agrawal (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-12-2025. 6 - Chirag Singh Chouhan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-12-2025. 7 - Mukesh Thakur S/o Padamnath Thakur, R/o 51, Haatkachora Village Abdul Kalam Ward No. 4, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)...........Owner ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Judgment on Board 02.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the award dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33/2021, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.42,52,345/- on account of the death of Shankar Agrawal, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.08.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased by taking into consideration the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for a period of three years. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, passed in 3 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10664 of 2019 and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand reported in (2025) 3 SCC 23, wherein it has been observed that “it is a well-settled principle of law that an income tax return is a legally admissible document. The income of the deceased can be assessed based on ITR but at the same time, the claimants are required to submit a certified copy of the return or a copy issued by the Competent Authority before the learned Tribunal. The claimants may also examine any official of the income-tax department to prove the contents of the ITR”. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in the present case, neither a certified copy of the ITRs has been produced nor any Income Tax Officer has been examined to prove the same. It is, therefore, contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid ITRs is unsustainable and that the impugned award is liable to be modified accordingly. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the learned Tribunal with due care. 6. In the case of National Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana and Others, 2009 ACJ 287, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that the provisions of the procedural law should not be applied with undue rigidity in proceedings arising out of motor vehicle accidents. The object of the legislation is to provide just and reasonable compensation to the victims of motor accidents and their dependants. Therefore, while considering a claim petition, the Tribunal is not expected to adopt a hyper-technical approach in matters of procedure or 4 evidence so as to defeat the very object of the beneficial legislation. 7. In the present case, the Income Tax Returns produced by claimant Pooja Agrawal were taken on record and were exhibited as Ex.P-44 to Ex.P-46. More importantly, during the course of exhibition of those documents, no objection was raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to the admissibility and genuineness of the aforesaid ITRs. 8. Learned Tribunal, after appreciating the material available on record, considered the deceased to be a grocer. There were total 5 claimants/dependants. On the basis of Ex.P- 44 to Ex.P-46, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,99,545/-. The mere absence of examination of an officer of the Income Tax Department or the non-production of the certified copy of the ITRs, by itself, cannot be treated as fatal in every case, particularly where the relevant ITRs were produced before the Tribunal, exhibited in evidence, and no objection to their exhibition was raised during the recording of evidence. 9. The observations made in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant were in the context of the facts and circumstances of those cases and were intended to emphasize the proper proof and reliability of the income-tax records relied upon for determination of income. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the appellant–Insurance Company are of no assistance to its case, as the facts and circumstances obtaining therein are materially distinguishable from those of the present case. 10. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the assessment of income made by the Tribunal 5 on the basis of the Income Tax Returns. 11. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai