Oral Judgment

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.302/2013, the appellants -original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2. Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants - original Claimants and Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The appeal is filed on the limited ground of quantum, and no issue regarding liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the deceased was doing contract work of fitting of tiles, marbles etc. in Welspun Company, Anjar and used to earn Rs.2,50,000/- per annum though income tax returns produced on record. Further, the Tribunal has also not awarded adequate compensation under other conventional heads also. He has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the documents produced on record and assessed income. The Tribunal has also examined the income tax returns for the A.Y. 2013-14 and assessed income of the deceased as Rs.16,000 p.m, which is just and proper. It is further contended that the compensation granted under other conventional heads are also proper and do not require any interference. Hence, she has prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.2 has filed an Affidavit at Exh:32, evidence of witness Dhirendra Suxena at Exh:36, evidence of Nandlal Prajapati at Exh:48, FIR at Exh:48, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:49, PM report at Exh:54, Income Tax return for A.Y. at Exh:56, statement of income at Exh:57, PAN card of the deceased at Exh:58. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the deceased is 38 years as per the PAN card at Exh:58.

6. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record, then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. But in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2013 and during that time, the deceased was working as a contractor of tiles fitting with the Welspun Company and as claimed used to earn Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. In support of the same, the claimants have also examined evidence of witness Dhirendra Saxena at Exh:36 and evidence of Nandlal Prajapati at Exh:48 from which it reveals that the deceased was working with Welspun Company for contract work of tiles fitting. But perusing the income tax returns filed for the A.Y. 2013-14, it reveals that the gross total income of the deceased has been shown as Rs.2,17,236/-. Therefore, to that extent, the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- per month.

7. This Court is of considered view that there is no rule in all cases that Court has to consider average income. There is no any gradually increase in the income and there is no bar to consider the last return which is already inspired confidence and was filed prior to the accident. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2020 ACJ 526 (SC), wherein it has been held that income-tax returns are statutory documents and the income of the deceased ought to be considered as per the ITRs. Once the Tribunal has accepted that increase in income is but natural, question does not arise to refuse the income as per the latest income tax return filed. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 872, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 has observed and held as under :-

          "12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e., 12.08.2008, the Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had not been filed, cannot disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which the Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1 st of April, 2007 and ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, and date of submission would be post-31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008 would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground of its submission after the date of accident alone, in our considered view, cannot be legally sustained.

          13. ... In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the '...Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future."

8. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.7200/- which comes to Rs.25,200/- and 1/5th amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,040/- and the net amount comes to Rs.20,160/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.20,160/- x 12 months x 15 multiplier = Rs.36,28,800/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,03,200/- under the head of future loss of dependency.

9. Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants - original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses.

10. Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.3,38,800/- for 7 claimants.

11. As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:-