HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 4012 of 2012 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Aditya Singh Parihar holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal, at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenges the judgment and award dated 14.8.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.970 of 2010 (Bichin Sharma vs. Devendra Kumar & Anr.) whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and an amount of Rs.15,19,140/- has been awarded as compensation. Brief Facts 3. According to the claim petition, on 30.05.2010, the appellant-claimant was taking Mrs. Ranju on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1 SP-6037 from Hapur to Kila Parikshitgarh for appearing in the nursing examination. When they reached village Safiabad Laothi, within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, the driver of Tata 407 bearing registration No. UP-13 J-2450, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road, hit the claimant’s motorcycle with great force, as a result of which both the claimant and Mrs. Ranju fell down and sustained serious injuries. 4. The Tribunal, considering the deposition of the appellant-claimant that the accident had occurred due to a head-on collision, held that the appellant-claimant had also contributed to the accident by his negligence Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : , Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Sahai Bichin Sharma .....Appellant(s) Devendra Kumar And Anr. .....Respondent(s) to the extent of 25%, whereas the driver of the offending vehicle was held negligent to the extent of 75%. Accordingly, against the total compensation of Rs.20,25,520/-, the Tribunal deducted 25% towards contributory negligence and awarded a sum of Rs.15,19,140/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-claimant 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant-claimant negligent to the extent of 25% and thereby deducted the said percentage from the total compensation awarded to him. The Tribunal has ignored the testimony of the eyewitness, P.W.-4 Tript Sharma, who stated that he was also coming behind the appellant-claimant on his motorcycle at the relevant time and that the driver of the offending vehicle, while driving on the wrong side of the road, hit the motorcycle of the appellant-claimant and knocked him down. It is further submitted that the said witness was extensively cross- examined, but nothing material could be elicited from his testimony to discredit his version. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-claimant is contrary to the evidence on record and is liable to be set aside. 6. It has further been argued that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the annual income of the appellant-claimant by deducting the amounts shown towards income tax in his income tax returns. The appellant-claimant had produced income tax returns for three years and had also established that he had been working as a commission agent at the Post Office, Hapur, for the preceding six years. In his income tax return for the assessment year 2009–2010, his annual income was shown as Rs.2,06,810/-, from which the Tribunal deducted Rs.37,000/- towards income tax and determined his annual income at Rs.1,69,810/-. Similarly, for the assessment year 2008–2009, the Tribunal deducted Rs.35,000/- from the annual income of Rs.1,37,477/- and determined the same at Rs.1,02,480/-. A similar deduction was made in respect of the income tax return for the assessment year 2010–2011. On the basis of the income so determined for the three years, the Tribunal assessed the average annual income of the appellant- claimant at Rs.1,31,323/-. FAFO No. 4012 of 2012 2 7. It has been contended that the amounts shown as income tax deductions in the aforesaid returns were, in fact, the commission earned by the appellant-claimant, which had been deducted by the Income Tax Department but was subsequently reimbursed to him by his department, as the said amount represented his commission. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in deducting the aforesaid amounts while determining the annual income of the appellant-claimant. Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-claimant negligent to the extent of 25%, as the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer clearly indicates that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision. 9. It has further been argued that the appellant-claimant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the amounts deducted towards income tax in his income tax returns were, in fact, commission earned by him and subsequently reimbursed by his department. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted the aforesaid amounts while determining his annual income, and no interference is warranted in the impugned award. Conclusion 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal on both the contested issues, as well as the evidence available on record. 11. It is evident from the record that an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.153 of 2010 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer indicates that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision. The appellant-claimant, Bichin Sharma, examined himself as P.W.-1 and, in his examination-in-chief, also stated that the accident had occurred due to a head-on collision. P.W.-4 Tript Sharma has also stated about the head- FAFO No. 4012 of 2012 3 on collision. Thus, the testimony of the appellant-claimant himself, read with the site plan and the statement of P.W.-4, supports the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident 12. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant-claimant had also contributed to the accident by his negligence to the extent of 25%, while holding the driver of the offending vehicle negligent to the extent of 75%, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 13. So far as the determination of income is concerned, although the appellant-claimant has contended that the amounts deducted towards income tax were, in fact, his commission, which were subsequently reimbursed by his department, no documentary or other cogent evidence has been adduced to establish the said fact. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for deducting the amounts shown towards income tax while assessing the annual income of the appellant-claimant. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of determination of income of the appellant. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award of the Tribunal is affirmed. September 11, 2026 SK FAFO No. 4012 of 2012 4 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad