Afr High Court · 2025
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 1 2025:CGHC:39126 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 10.7.2025 Order Delivered on 06/08/2025 MAC No. 1049 of 2020 1. Smt. Mani Bai Rajput W/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 45 Years 2. Sagar Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 26 Years 3. Akash Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 23 Years 4. Abhay Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 17 Years (Now Aged About 18 Years), All R/o Ward No. 23, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Dasrathi Sunani S/o Senapati Sunani Aged About 30 Years R/o Amadhola, Police Station Junagarh, Kalahandi (Odisha), (Driver Of Offending Tanker No. CG-04, LJ-5151), 2. Pankaj Kumar Jha S/o Shardanand Jha R/o Shriram Nagar, Shanker Nagar, Raipur , Police Station Shanker Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Tanker No. CG-04, LJ-5151), 3. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building, Kachhari Chowk , Jail Road, Raipur District 2 Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Tanker No. CG-04, LJ-5151), 4. Nohar Singh Rajput S/o Manmohan Singh Rajput Aged About 50 Years At Present R/o Mandir Hasaud , Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
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 MACT No.648/2018 Mithlesh & Ors. Vs. Jitender Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 34 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." 14. Upon testing the facts of present case on the touchstone of the factors laid down in above decisions, this Court is of the view that that the Claims Tribunal committed grave error in disbelieving the income tax return while assessing the income of deceased. A glance of income tax return (Ex.P-16) would reveal that claimants along with income tax return has 10 attached computation of total income and acknowledgment of receipt of the ITR-V issued by the Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department for and on behalf of the Commissioner of Income Tax, ITD-CPC, Bangalore. As per this acknowledgment receipt, date of e-filing is 5.9.2015 and date of receipt at CPC, Bangalore is 16.9.2015. This receipt contains a note at the bottom that “this is a computer generated email and needs no signature’. As per E-Filing of Return Scheme of CBDT, where the return is filed electronically without digital signature, on successful transmission the computer shall generate acknowledgment in form ITR-V. Thus, from the copy of the acknowledgment of the receipt of said ITR-V issued by the CPC, receipt of the same on 16.9.2015 and e-filing of the income tax return for assessment year -2014-15 on 05.9.2015 is clearly evident. Similarly is the position in respect of income tax returns (Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-19). 15. Section 140 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides as to the verification of the return, according to which, the return under Section 115WD or Section 139 shall be verified in case of an individual by the individual himself. Perusal of income tax returns brought on record by claimants would reveal that the deceased has verified the return as per contained verification from the deceased. Thus the requirement of Section 140 of 11 the Act of 1961 has also been satisfied at the time of filing of return. Therefore, merely because the signature of deceased were not appearing on income tax returns, Ex.P-16 to Ex.P- 19, or only nominal tax was paid during a particular assessment year, no adverse inference could have been drawn as to the above said Income Tax returns containing seal of acknowledgment from the Income Tax Department, particularly when the claim proceedings are in the nature of inquiry to unearth the truth for awarding just compensation. Hence, rejection of income tax returns for technical considerations would be rather contrary to very purpose of the Act of 1988. It is well settled that a person can tell lie but document cannot and when there is any documentary evidence, no amount of oral evidence to that effect can be considered. Thus, the Claims Tribunal should have accepted the annual income of deceased, as reflecting in Income Tax return (Ex.P-19). 16. As far as reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent No.3 on decision of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra) is concerned, in that case xerox of income tax returns was filed which were disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal and the High Court. Said approach was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In case at hand, the claimants have filed income tax returns along with acknowledgment receipt issued on the letter head 12 of Income Tax Department. They have also examined Income Tax Advisor as AW-2 to prove filing of the returns etc. There is no rebuttal evidence by the respondent Insurance Company to show that the contents of said Income- Tax Returns were not correct. Hence, the said decision is of no help to the respondent No.3 being distinguishable on facts of present case. 17. In view of above, taking into account the ITR filed on behalf of the deceased for the assessment year 2017-18, this Court proposes to assess income of deceased as Rs.3,04,780/- per annum. It can be gathered from the ITR for the year 2017-18 that a sum of Rs.492/- was paid as income tax, which is deductible from the income of deceased and accordingly, after deducting a sum of Rs.492/- from the annual income of deceased, net income of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,04,288/-. It is ordered accordingly. 18. On the date of accident, deceased was 26 years old unmarried boy, therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of one-half towards personal expenses and application of multiplier ‘17’ is in consonance with the principles governing computation of loss of dependency. Compensation awarded under other heads i.e. loss of estate 13 and funeral expenses, is also in consonance with the law and needs no interference. The Claims Tribunal though held that parents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation of consortium but awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- only towards loss of consortium. It is well settled that in case of death of a child in a road traffic accident, the parents are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘filial consortium’. Hence, the Claims Tribunal erred in awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant No.1 and respondent No.4, who are mother and father of deceased, will be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. 19.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,04,288/- per annum and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.4,26,003/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-half, loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,13,001/-. Applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.36,21,017/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 and respondent No.4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each 14 towards filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants- claimants are entitled for, comes to Rs.37,31,071/- This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 21.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-
Arguments
: Ms.Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.03.2020 in Claim Case No.H- 24/2019 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) for the death of Shekhar Singh Rajput in accident dated 25.7.2018 which allegedly occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of non- applicant No.1 in driving tanker bearing registration mark CG- 04, LJ-5151 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). It is averred that Bhimsen Pandey was going on his motorcycle to Raipur from Mahasamund, his motorcycle was dashed by offending vehicle near Bhagat Petrol Pump due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, as a result Bhimsen sustained grievous 3 injuries and died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. At the time of accident, Shekhar Singh Rajput was 26 years old bachelor, working as Manager in Yash Transport, Mahasamund, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, have jointly filed reply to claim application pleading that claim application is filed on false and frivolous grounds. Deceased himself was driving motorcycle negligently, as a result he lost control over it and fell down. At time of accident, non-applicant No.1-driver, was possessing valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.3 and since the offending vehicle was plied on road as per terms of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is liable to indemnify the insured. 4. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company filed its reply to claim application pleading that all the claimants being major were not dependent on the income of deceased. At the time of accident, deceased was not wearing helmet. Accident did not occur with the offending vehicle. This apart, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license on the date of accident. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident 4 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver, there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.15,48,000/- and non- applicants were made liable, jointly and severally, to pay the amount of compensation to claimants. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that the deceased was 26 years old, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and in support thereof, the claimants have produced the income tax return, however, the Claims Tribunal did not rely upon the income shown in income tax return and erroneously assessed the income of deceased on notional basis. In support of her submission, she relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, reported in reported in (2025) 3 SCC 23 wherein it is held that monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of the payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law. She submits that the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, considering the number of dependents being '4' should have been only one- third and not one-half as deducted by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to 5 appellant No.2 to 3, brother of deceased, and only awarded Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to appellant No.1, mother of deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, she prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. He contended that income tax returns submitted on behalf of the claimants do not bear any rubber stamp and signature of the Income Tax Department. Referring to provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he submits that if the income tax return is not submitted within stipulated time, then without there being due acknowledgment by the Income Tax Department, mere e-filing of ITR-V without signature, will not be considered as “e-return’ or proof of tax. He submits that income tax return brought on record by the claimants do not contain any acknowledgment of e-return of income tax or signature of deceased and thus, it is simply a form of ITR-V which cannot be treated as income tax return filed on behalf of the deceased. Hence, the Claims Tribunal rightly not relied upon the income tax return for assessing income of deceased. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision in case of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra) and Sangita Arya vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 6 (2020) 5 SCC 327. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 9. So far as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that deceased was working as Manager in Yash Transport and also running transportation business individually. Claimants have not produced any documentary evidence nor examined proprietor of Yash Transport to prove engagement of deceased as Manager in Yash Transport and earning therefrom. However, in order to prove income of deceased from self-business, claimants have produced income tax returns for the assessment year 2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are marked as Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19. In these income tax returns, gross total income of the deceased is shown as Rs.1,14,500/-, Rs.1,63,450/-, Rs.2,58,150/- and Rs.3,13,640/- respectively. In order to prove these income tax returns, the claimants have examined Bharat Sahu (AW-2), who had prepared and filed income tax returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) on behalf of the deceased. According to this witness, since the year 2014-15 deceased was engaged in wholesale business of selling fruits and vegetables in the name and style of ‘S.S. Traders’ and he has prepared the income tax returns on the basis of information made available by the deceased. He has deposed 7 that for the income as disclosed by the deceased, there was no need of books of accounts. In Para-7 of his cross- examination, he has given details as to how the accounts were settled and how gross income of deceased has been shown as Rs.3,13,540/- i.e. income from business plus income from other sources. He has deposed that income tax returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) were submitted online, which do not require signature of assesee. 10. The Claims Tribunal considered notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and did not consider the income tax returns submitted by the claimants recording that these income tax returns contain estimated income of deceased, particulars of income and expenses are not furnished, nominal tax of Rs.490/- has been paid in Ex.P-19 and therefore, definite assessment of the income of the deceased could not be made on the basis of income tax returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) because such types of income tax returns are maintained by struggling youth for many other purposes. This finding of the Claims Tribunal is not only absurd but not germane to the compensatory jurisprudence with regard to the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 11. It is well settled that Income Tax Returns, which contain declaration of income by Income Tax Assessee, is a statutory 8 document filed in compliance of statutory obligation and the determination of annual income of deceased in claim proceeding must proceed on the basis of income tax return wherever available. 12. In case of Kalpanaraj and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764, the High Court negated the approach of the Tribunal in determining monthly income of deceased on notional basis instead of income tax returns, which was only available documentary evidence on record of monthly income, and in such circumstance, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that High Court was correct to determine monthly income on the basis of income tax return. Relevant portion of Para-6 and 8 of the said decision are relevant and the same are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- “6.The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the statement of evidence of the wife of the deceased to determine the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- instead of relying upon the income shown in the income tax return….” 8. It is pertinent to note that the only available documentary evidence on record of the monthly income fo the deceased is the income tax return filed by him with the Income Tax Department. The High Court was correct, therefore, to determine the monthly income on the basis of 9 the income tax return….” 13. Recently, in case of Smt. Anjali and others vs. Lokendra Rathor, reported in 2022 SCC Online C 1683 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “9.The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009- 2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/-