1 CGHC010028442024 2026:CGHC:41260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 176 of 2024 1 - Sushma Dewangan W/o Late Krishna Kumar Aged About 30 Years Caste Dewangan R/o Hazari Gali Dewanganpara Champa Thana Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ayush Dewangan S/o Late Krishna Kumar Aged About 11 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Sushma Dewangan, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Dewangan R/o Hazari Gali Dewanganpara Champa Thana Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - Neeraj Dewangan S/o Late Krishna Kumar Minor Represented Through Mother Sushma Dewangan, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Dewangan And R/o Hazari Gali Dewanganpara Champa Thana Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Jeevanlal S/o Jugruram Aged About 69 Years Caste Dewangan And R/o Hazari Gali Dewanganpara Champa Thana Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5 - Parvati Dewangan W/o Jeevanlal Aged About 65 Years Caste Dewangan And R/o Hazari Gali Dewanganpara Champa Thana Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Jiveshraj Suryavanshi S/o Jitendra Suryavanshi R/o Ward No. 08, Suryavanshi Para Village Darri Post Dhaneli Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Driver/owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 Nu 9241) 2 - S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office 4th Floor Poojari Chamber Dhamtari Road Pachpedi Naka Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 Nu 9241) ... Respondents Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.26 15:45:06 +0530 2 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate with Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (22.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 04.01.2024, passed in Claim Case No.34/2023, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,55,545/- as compensation for the death of Late Krishna Kumar Dewangan, who died in a road accident which took place on 19.11.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the deceased, Krishna Kumar Dewangan, worked as an accountant and earned an annual income of 4,46,680/-. In support of this ₹ claim, the Appellants produced Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for two Assessment Years: Assessment Year 2021–2022 (Exhibit P- 1): Showing an annual income of 4,39,370/-. Assessment Year ₹ 2022–2023 (Exhibit P-2): Showing an annual income of ₹4,56,990/-. It was emphasized that both ITRs had been filed prior to the date of the incident (19.11.2022). However, the Tribunal erroneously disregarded these documents solely because they were photocopies. Furthermore, the evidence of Mayank Soni (C.A.), examined as a witness, corroborated that the deceased worked as an accountant for various firms, earning between 40,000/- and 45,000/- per month. Despite ₹ ₹ this cogent evidence, the Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at a meager 6,000/-, which is exceptionally ₹ low and perverse to the record. It is therefore contended that the 3 deceased's income ought to be determined on the basis of the submitted ITRs, and the awarded compensation enhanced accordingly. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand 1 and Rashmirekha Tripathy & Anr. vs. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. 2 . Learned counsel for the appellants further prayed that since there is a breach of policy conditions as the driver/owner of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license at that time, the principle of ‘Pay and Recover’ may be applied as per law. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company contended that there is a lack of clear and reliable evidence regarding the specific nature of the work performed by the deceased or the specific firms he was associated with. It was submitted that no certified copies of the alleged ITRs were produced on record. Furthermore, neither the Chartered Accountant who filed the returns nor any official from the Income Tax Department was examined to prove their authenticity, rendering the unverified photocopies (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) inadmissible in evidence. The deceased is described as an independent filer/businessman rather than a salaried employee. Consequently, relying on the decision in Rashmirekha (supra) is misplaced, as that principle does not warrant assessing income solely on the basis of unverified ITRs under these circumstances. It is urged that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate based on the evidence presented. There is no permanent job or fixed salary for the deceased; since the deceased was 40 years old, the future prospects should be calculated at 25% instead of 40%. The appeal is therefore liable to be modified accordingly. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their 1 (2025) 3 SCC 23 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1256 4 rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the claim petition, the annual income of the deceased, Krishna Kumar Dewangan, was pleaded as 4,46,680/-, derived ₹ from his work as an accountant on a daily-wage basis for Chartered Accountant Mayank Agarwal, alongside his independent accounting practice for various clients. Income Tax Returns (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) were placed on record to substantiate this claim. To prove these earnings, Chartered Accountant Mayank Agarwal (AW-2) was examined as a witness and corroborated that the deceased worked as an accountant for multiple firms and managed Income Tax and GST compliance filings. The witness personally audited the relevant client firms, and the deceased also facilitated accounting work for entities associated with other Chartered Accountants. During cross-examination, the witness explicitly named several of the firms involved. Crucially, the testimony of Mayank Agarwal remained consistent, cogent, and entirely unrebutted during cross-examination. 6. If the attested copy of the submitted ITR is not presented or it is not confirmed by any Income Tax Officer or Chartered Accountant, what should be the conditions for its validity, the opinion expressed by the Apex Court in paras No. 9 and 11 in the matter of Sonigra Juhi (Supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants is as follows - “9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal the monthly income of the appellant’s father as also the mother were fixed by the Tribunal and the same was not challenged by the respondent in appeal. The fact is that, the appellant had produced only the xerox copies of the income tax returns of her parents, pertaining to Financial Years 2003 to 2007. Indisputably, the Tribunal as also the High court did not take them as admissible evidence and make assessment 5 on their basis. At the same time without placing reliance on the xerox copies of the income tax returns, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of her father as Rs. 12,000 and that of her mother as Rs. 8000. The impugned judgment would reveal that the monthly income thus fixed in the case of the parents were slightly enhanced by the High Court and it in the case of her father was re-fixed as Rs. 18,000 and in case of her mother as Rs. 9000.” “11. But finding that the monthly income so assessed was slightly on the lower side and taking into account various parameters, the High Court enhanced the monthly income in their cases, respectively, as Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 9000. Taking note of the year of the accident and the age of the deceased parents of the appellant, we do not think that the monthly income so re-fixed by the High Court is without jurisdiction or highly excessive. The said approach cannot be said to be legally improper or incorrect warranting an interference. Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.” 7. Similarly, regarding the matter at hand, reliance has been placed by both counsels on the precedent set in the case of Rashmirekha (supra), wherein the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 17 to 20 are as follows:- “17. In the considered view of this court, there can be no hard and fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important reference point when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the purposes of 6 compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.” “18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R. Midha, learned Senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self- employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In or view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.” “19. When it comes to self-employed/individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in there professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include; a) The nature of the business (including geographic location, category etc.); b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the business; c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain businesses are capital intensive at the ouset and are profitable at scale/in the future); d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial standing); and e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business. “20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be taken into consideration.” 7 8. When considering the facts and evidence of the case in hand in light of the conditions laid down in paragraphs 19 & 20 of the aforementioned precedent [Rashmirekha (Supara)], it becomes evident that the ITRs submitted as Exhibits P-1 and P-2 are not certified copies; furthermore, neither the Chartered Accountant who submitted them nor any Income Tax Officer was examined. However, Mayank Agarwal (AW-2) who works as a Chartered Accountant has confirmed the fact that the deceased, Krishna Kumar Dewangan worked as the accountant. Mayank Agrawal has stated in his examination in chief which has been submitted by affidavit, that he knows the deceased Krishna Kumar Dewangan, he died in a motorcycle accident about a year ago, he used to work as an accountant for various firms, under which he also used to file their income tax and GST, and used to get the audit work of the concerned firms done by him (Mayank) and other C.As., when asked, the deceased Krishna Kumar told him (Mayank) that he used to earn Rs. 40 to 45 thousand per month from the said work. 9. The 'Computation of Total Income' charts attached to the ITRs (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) also indicate that the deceased was engaged in the profession of accounting, bookkeeping, and auditing. The deceased used to submit the ITR himself. It is also noteworthy that the accident occurred on 19.11.2022, whereas the ITR for Exhibit P-1 had been submitted on 26.12.2021. The ITR for Exhibit P-2 was also submitted prior to the accident, on 26.07.2022; it bears a bar-code, the authenticity of which can be verified. The testimony of Mayank Agrawal (AW-2) remains unrebutted, and the entire body of evidence ranging from the pleadings to the oral testimony corroborates the fact that the deceased worked as an accountant. There is no specific denial regarding his work and profession, that is, if he was not doing this work, then what was he doing? Under these circumstances, and in light of the aforementioned precedent, the ITRs cannot be deemed unreliable. Based on the ITRs for two years 8 corroborated by Mayank Soni's statement the deceased's average annual income is calculated to be ₹4,48,180/-; therefore, the income of the deceased, Krishna Kumar Dewangan, is assessed at an annual figure of 4,48,180/-, ₹ rather than a monthly income of 6,000/-. ₹ 10.Thus, in light of the evidence on record and the settled legal position, the average annual income of the deceased ought to be taken as 4,48,180/-, as established by the Income Tax Returns ₹ for the Assessment Year 2021-22 (Ex. P-01) and Assessment Year 2022-23 (Ex.P-02), which was submitted on 26.12.2021 & 26.07.2022, respectively, prior to the accident. The deceased was not salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years as per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 25%. After adding 25% future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,12,045/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5,60,225/- (4,48,180+1,12,045). 11.From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2022-2023 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2022-2023 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh nill Rs. 2,50,000/- nill 2,50,001 to 5 lakh 5% Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 12,500/- 5,00,001 to 10 lakh 20% Rs. 60,225/- Rs. 12,045/- Total Rs. 5,60,225/- Rs. 24,545/- Education Cess 4% Rs. 24,545/- Rs. 982/- Total Tax Rs. 25,527/- 12.In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.5,34,698/- (5,60,225-25,527). 13.Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of 9 Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors4, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Annual Income Rs. 4,48,180/- 2. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 1,12,045) = 5,60,225/- Tax deduction Rs. 5,60,225-25,527 = 5,34,698/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/4 (i.e. 1,33,674) = 4,01,024/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 60,15,360/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,53,000/- [16,500+16,500+(44,000x5)] Total Rs. 62,68,360/- 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,55,545/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.62,68,360/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,55,545/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.50,12,815/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. 15. So far as the prayer to apply the principle of ‘pay and recover’ is concerned, it is clear from the evidence that though at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed a valid and effective driving license, but the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, and in the case of Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 10 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants/appellant and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 17. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu