HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. Mu

: Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Archana Mantri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 18/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned award dated 26.09.2013 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4 and Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.332/2013 titled as "Rajni Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (2 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] Kumar & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs.5,61,660/- has been awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

20.06.2008, the deceased, Late Shiv Kumar Thakuria, aged 40 years, was traveling in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.RJ-14- U-2282 from Agra towards Jaipur via Bassi. At about 06:00AM, when they reached near Aai Mata Hotel, ahead of Sikandara, a truck bearing registration No.RJ-05-G-4687, driven by its driver (respondent No.1) in a rash and negligent manner, was going ahead of them. The driver of the truck applied sudden brakes, causing the Maruti Van to collide with the truck. This tragic accident resulted in the spot death of Late Shiv Kumar Thakuriya & Sunil Kumar. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuriya, 40 years of age, was running his own shop in the name of M/s Jageshwar Kirana Store at Bassi and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants sought just and adequate compensation for the death of the deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuriya.

3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimants. Non-claimants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their reply, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Maruti Van (RJ-14-U-2282) and that there was no negligence on the part of the truck in question. They prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. In the alternative, it was stated that the truck was insured with non-claimant/respondent No.3- [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (3 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] Insurance Company, and if any liability was found, it may be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

4. Non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants and submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective license; therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants.

5. The proforma respondent No.4-Smt. Radha Devi filed a reply to the claim petition and supported the facts stated therein.

6. On the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five (5) issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants/appellants examined Smt. Rajni Devi (AW- 1) and Dharam Singh Meena (AW-2) as witnesses and produced relevant documents as Ex-1 to Ex-27.

8. In rebuttal, the respondents examined Smt. Radha Devi (NAW-1) and R.C. Sahoo (NAW-2) as witnesses and produced three relevant documents as Ex-NAW.1 to Ex-NAW.3.

9. It is pertinent to mention that initially the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition vide order dated 03.04.2012. However, this decision was challenged in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2624/2012, wherein this Court vide order dated 06.12.2012, set aside the finding of Issue No.4 and remanded the matter back. Consequent thereto, the learned Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 26.09.2013, re-decided Issue No.4 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,61,660/-; while considering the age of the [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (4 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuria to be 40 years, his income to be Rs.135/- per day (equivalent to Rs.4,050/- per month), making necessary deductions, and applying the multiplier of 15.

10. Being aggrieved by this award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants.

11. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not challenged the findings recorded under the impugned order by filing a separate appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the loss of income, erred in calculating and holding the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,050/-, based on Rs.135/- per day. He further submitted that the deceased was running a grocery kirana shop and was a regular income tax assessee. To prove his income, the claimants/appellants produced various income tax returns (Ex-17 to Ex-27), with the last return reflecting an income of Rs.1,23,989/- for the deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuria. Despite filing this conclusive document to substantiate the factum of income, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an inadequate amount of compensation. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuria and awarded an inadequate amount under the conventional heads. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned award may kindly be modified and the compensation be enhanced.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants. She submitted that the learned Tribunal, [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (5 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] after due consideration, passed the impugned award based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, and awarded just compensation. She further submitted that the income tax returns were rightly disregarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, she prayed that the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants may kindly be dismissed.

14. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

15. From a bare perusal of the record, it is indicated that in order to substantiate the averments regarding income, the claimants/appellants filed as many as 10 income tax returns (Ex- 17 to Ex-27). Exhibits Date of Filing Accounting Year Income Ex - 17 26/11/2001 AY 2000-01 Ex - 18 26/11/2001 AY 2001-02 Ex - 19 02/08/2002 AY 2002-03 Ex - 21 28/09/2003 AY 2003-04 Ex - 22 30/12/2004 AY 2004-05 Rs.49,113/- Rs.48,018/- Rs.59,359/- Rs.61,264/- Rs.64,309/- Ex - 24 18/08/2005 AY 2005-06 Rs.1,04,146/- Ex - 26 02/01/2007 AY 2006-07 Rs.12,137/- Ex - 27 17/09/2007 AY 2007-08 Rs.1,23,989/- As per the last income tax return submitted on 17.09.2007, the gross total income of the deceased Shiv Kumar Thakuria was shown as Rs.1,23,989/-.

16. That the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal disbelieved the ITR's while observing that the wife of the deceased, Rajni Devi has admitted that she was not aware about the facts mentioned in the ITR, therefore, it was necessary for her to produce the account [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (6 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] books, details of expenditure or to examine auditor etc whereas the learned Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi Vs. United reported in (2020)4 SCC 228 affirmed that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of ITR, when available, being a statutory document.

17. In the matter of Smt. Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.9014 of 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated held that the Income Tax Returns are a statutory document, but still the learned Tribunal has not considered the same which is arbitrary and perverse. Thus, the learned Tribunal seriously erred in wrongly discarding the ITRs on hyper technical ground, in my considered opinion, since there is no evidence in rebuttal by the Insurance Company to the effect that said ITRs are fake or forged one, so, in my considered opinion, income of the deceased should be assessed as mentioned in the ITR for the purpose of computing the compensation.

18. Further the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forwarded looking to the unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position. Therefore, the learned Tribunal seriously erred in ignoring these documents i.e. ITRs of the deceased and awarded compensation by treating the monthly income of the deceased Shiv Lal Thakuria to be Rs.4,050/- per month. Therefore, the finding recorded by the [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (7 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014] learned Tribunal to disbelieve the ITRs Ex.17 to Ex.27 is perverse in the eye of law, accordingly, hereby set aside and accordingly the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.10,332/- per month as per ITR for AY 2007-08 (Ex-27).

19. Furthermore, the record of the learned Tribunal reflects that it did not consider the future prospects of the deceased, and the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also less, inconsistent with the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

20. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income (Annual) Rs.1,23,989/- Future Prospects (Rs.1,23,989/-x40%)(+) Rs.49,595.60/- Adjusted Annual Income (Rs.1,23,989/-+Rs.49,595.60/-) Rs.1,73,584.60/- Deduction 1/4 (Rs.1,73,584.60/-x1/4)(-) Rs.43,396.15/- Dependency Income (Annual) (Rs.1,73,584.60/--Rs.43,396.15/-) Total Loss of Dependency (Rs.1,30,188.45/-x15(Multiplier)) Rs.1,30,188.45/- Rs.19,52,826.75/- Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x4)(+) Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral Expenses(+) Loss of Estate(+) Total (Rs.19,52,826.75/-+Rs.1,60,000/- +Rs.15,000/-+Rs.15,000/-) Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.21,42,826.75/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.5,61,660/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.15,81,166.75/- [2025:RJ-JP:26962] (8 of 8) [CMA-1954/2014]

21. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified by enhancing Rs.21,42,826.75/- from the original amount of Rs.5,61,660/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.15,81,166.75/- before the concerned learned Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.15,81,166.75/- @ of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

22. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

23. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Seema/36 (MANEESH SHARMA),J