Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Anjali Singh Ms. Moumita Mondal, Advocates v. MANOJ KUMAR RANA ORS on 06 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. The appellants were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in MACT No. 335/2010. By way of this appeal, they seek enhancement of compensation, granted by the award dated 22.12.2022. The Tribunal granted them compensation of Rs. 7,78,182/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. The factual background relating to the claim is not disputed. The deceased, Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, and his wife (appellant No. 1 herein) Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013 were travelling on a two-wheeler scooter bearing No. DL-5SK-8085 on

22.03.2010 at 12:40 AM. The scooter was being driven by the deceased. At a T-point crossing in Madhu Vihar, Delhi, it was hit by a Maruti Alto car bearing No. UP-14-AQ-6744. Both riders on the scooter sustained grievous injuries, and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on

22.03.2010. He was 46 years of age at the time of the accident.

3. Following the accident, a criminal case was registered1 and a claim was also instituted before the Tribunal for compensation. The respondents before the Tribunal were the driver, owner and insurer of the car - arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 respectively, both before the Tribunal and before this Court. Before the Tribunal, all the respondents filed separate written statements, but evidence was led only by the claimants and respondent No.3- National Insurance Company Ltd. [“Insurance Company”].

4. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the insured vehicle (Respondent-1 herein), and computed compensation of Rs. 7,78,182/- under the following heads: Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. On Account of Loss of dependency Loss of Consortium Towards medical bills Loss of Love and affection Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Total Amount (Rs.) Rs.7,11,516/- Rs.10,000/- Rs. 11,666/- Rs.25,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 7,78,182/-

1 FIR 85/2010 under Sections 279/338/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Madhu Vihar. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013

5. I have heard Mr. Manish Maini, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, and Ms. Shruti Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

6. The principal ground of challenge relates to the appellants’ claim for loss of dependency. The appellants had placed before the Tribunal, the income tax returns of the deceased for three Assessment Years, 2007–08, 2008–09 and 2009–10, which showed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,06,961.88, Rs. 1,08,745 and Rs. 1,48,974, respectively. The Tribunal, based on the cross-examination of appellant No. 1 by the Insurance Company, disregarded the income tax returns and instead computed the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, as there was also no proof of his educational qualifications. It is the contention of the appellants that this approach of the Tribunal was erroneous, and that the income tax returns should have been accepted as evidence of the income of the deceased in the relevant year.

7. Learned counsel for the parties also made submissions regarding errors in the non-pecuniary heads of damages awarded by the Tribunal, which are also discussed hereinbelow. A. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

8. Turning first to the evidence of the three income tax returns, it is undisputed that the returns were exhibited before the Tribunal as Ex. PW- 1/15 to Ex. PW-1/17, respectively. The certified copies of the income tax returns disclosed in the Tribunal’s record, as stated above, show income of Rs. 1,06,961.88, Rs. 1,08,745 and Rs. 1,48,974, respectively. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013

9. The appellant No. 1, who deposed as PW-1, however, stated in cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company, as follows “…I have not filed any business document of my husband on record...”. It is this statement, and the lack of any balance sheet or proof of transactions, that was relied upon by the Insurance Company to discredit the appellants’ claim.

10. The Tribunal accepted this submission with the following reasoning: “37. In view of the rival contentions on behalf of Ld. counsel for both the parties and also taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner and also in the absence of other relevant documents required to be filed with the ITR coupled with the fact that petitioner in her testimony during cross examination clearly stated that she is not having any document showing thereby that her husband was doing a business, the filing of the ITR alone cannot be considered as cogent evidence regarding income of deceased, therefore, the plea taken by Ld. counsel for petitioner is declined and by following the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided case cited as Kiran Devi & another Vs. Surjeet Yadav and anothers II (2010) ACC 289 wherein it is observed as under: "while assessing the income of the deceased in motor accident cases, the Tribunal should bear in mind that the same should be assessed on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence produced and duly proved on record. In this regard the thumb rule is that where there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the monthly income at the time of accident then the minimum wages notified under the minimum wages act prevalent at the time of accident can be taken into consideration. and also in the absence of any proof of educational qualifications, the income of the deceased is to be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Chart being an unskilled worker prevalent on the date of accident.”2 2 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal’s approach was in error. In the affidavit of evidence of appellant No. 1, she had stated as follows, with regard to her husband’s business: “(4) That deceased was A CLOTH MERCHANT and he was in business of trading cloth/dress material etc. He was running this business from a portion of his house at ground floor by employing 7-8 persons, He was earning RS. 15,000/-P.m. deceased was an income-tax payee. The income of the deceased would have increased at least three times in HIS lifetime. HE was hard working and progressive in nature and used to do his work with utmost care and faith. He was contributing entire amount on the livelihood of Petitioner and other family members. Now the entire family is broken and at the verge of starvation and are suffering and would suffer inconvenience and discomfort throughout life.”3

12. The Tribunal disregarded the certified copies of the income tax returns, solely on the basis that the appellant had not filed any proof regarding her husband’s business, such as a balance sheet or any proof of transactions. However, the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2007–08 itself contains a disclosure that he carried on a proprietorship business, alongwith the balance sheet of the proprietorship business and the profit and loss account. Similarly, for Assessment Years 2008–09 and 2009–10 also, the deceased declared his gross receipts, gross profits, expenses and net profits, in the columns applicable to a case where regular books of account of business or profession are not maintained. It is clear that the cross-examination of the witness did not challenge the veracity of these returns, but only emphasised that no other books of account or documents had been filed. It must be remembered that the 3 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013 Tribunal was not required to come to a finding beyond reasonable doubt, but only on a preponderance of probabilities. When the income tax returns themselves disclosed that the deceased did not maintain regular books of account, insistence upon balance sheets and other business documents was unnecessary to arrive at a conclusion to the standard required.

13. All three income tax returns, including the one for the Assessment Year 2009-10, i.e., for the Financial Year 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, were filed before the accident, the latest one having been filed on 07.10.2009. There can therefore be no inflation of the income of the deceased, for the purposes of the present claim for compensation.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal’s finding that the income of the deceased was to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker is set aside.

15. The question then arises as to the correct computation of the loss of dependency. Having regard to the fact that the accident in question occurred more than 15 years ago, and long pendency of this appeal before this Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have entered into the question of re-computation in this appeal, instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal for this purpose.

16. As far as this aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the parties joined issue as to whether the ITR for Assessment Year 2009-10 alone should be taken into account, or whether the income should be estimated on the average of the three ITRs filed. Mr. Maini’s contention was that the deceased, at 46 years of age, was in the prime of his career and his returns also show steady business growth. The latest ITR would, according to him, give the nearest estimate of his income at the time of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:42:00 MAC.APP. 356/2013 the accident. Mr. Nath however, argued that the income in Financial Year 2008-09 shows an irregular and steep increase of about 40% over the last financial year, for which it would be prudent to consider the average of three years’ income.

17. Mr. Maini referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr.4, wherein the Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, disapproved of taking average of two years’ income tax returns: “9. The deceased was aged 45 years and was doing transport business. Though the claimants have filed income tax returns for two Assessment Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, as per the income tax returns for the year 2006-2007, the income of the assessee was Rs 2,02,911. The Tribunal did not take the income of the deceased for Assessment Year 2006-2007 on the ground that only xerox copy was filed and the claimants have failed to examine the Income Tax Authorities to prove the same. Instead of taking the income of the deceased as per Assessment Year 2006- 2007, the High Court has chosen to calculate the average of the income for two Assessment Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Considering the age of the deceased and the nature of business he was doing, in my considered view, the High Court was not justified in so taking the average of income of the two assessment years. The deceased was aged 45 years and doing business. Admittedly, he was also owning agricultural lands. Even though agricultural income was not shown in the income tax return, it emerges from the evidence that the deceased was also doing agricultural work.”5

18. Mr. Nath, on the other hand, referred to Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.6, wherein, according to him, the Supreme Court did take into account an average of the last two ITRs. He referred to the following observations of the Supreme Court: