A, Saket Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Claimant v. Nasruddin

Mr. Shubham Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priya Khushlani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation assailing the award dated 19.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in Case No.389/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly allowed and a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,96,568/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (2 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008]

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants stating that on

04.02.2005, the deceased, Ramesh Jethani, was returning from Jaipur Airport to Ajmer in an Indica Car (Taxi) bearing No.RJ-01-T- 0495 which was being driven by the non-claimant/respondent No.1-Nasruddin @ Nisar Khan, in excess speed and in rash and negligent manner thereby lost the control over the Indica Car (Taxi), therefore, the vehicle collided with a Truck, which was going just ahead of the Taxi, due to the said accident, the deceased-Ramesh Jethani died on the spot.

3. The claimants pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 30 years, and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running "Maa Kripa Bangle Store." Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking just and proper compensation.

4. Non-claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 (Driver and Owner of the vehicle respectively) filed their reply on 10.01.2006, stating that the answering respondent driver was driving at normal speed and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Truck, which was going ahead. However, neither of the respondents appeared before the learned Tribunal; therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against them on 20.02.2006.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the said petition. [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (3 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008]

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments of the claim, the claimant examined herself as AW-1-Geeta Jaithani, AW-2-Deepak, and AW-3-Mahesh and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.13 including Ex.1-FIR, Ex.2-Final Report, Ex.3-Final Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.4- Site plan, Ex.5-Seizure memo Indica car and Ex.6-Post Mortem report, Ex.7 D/L, Ex.8 R/C and Ex.9 Insurance Policy, Ex.10 to Ex.13, ITRs (Income Tax Returns).

8. In rebuttal, the non-claimants/respondents have examined NAW-1 Hemsingh Rawat and produced documents as Ex.NA1 to Ex.NA3.

9. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal has decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,96,568/- with interest @ 7% per annum.

10. Being aggrieved of which the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that the learned Tribunal awarded an inadequate amount of compensation and erred in not appreciating the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running a Bangle Store. He further submits that despite producing income tax returns (Exs.10 to 13), the learned Tribunal while determining the loss of income, arbitrarily assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (4 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008] reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Priya Devi and Ors. vs. Bhagirath and Ors. reported in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1129/2018 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.10664 of 2019 and in the case of Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.9014 of

2022. He further submits that income tax returns are conclusive proof with regard to income despite that the learned Tribunal awarded inadequate amount, therefore, the present appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order may be suitably modified in the light of the aforesaid judgments as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the pleadings and evidence available on record in correct perspective and awarded a just and proper compensation, hence, the award does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court.

13. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (5 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008]

14. That the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to prove the fact that the deceased was carrying on business of bangle store and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month from the said business, whereas from the record of the case, it is revealed that claimants have submitted income-tax return (Ex.10) for assessment year 2002-2003, wherein the total income of the deceased was shown as Rs.2,68,905/-, Ex.11 for assessment year 2003-2004, wherein the total income of the deceased was shown as Rs.3,91,858/-, Ex.12 for assessment year 2004-2005, wherein the total income of the deceased was shown as Rs.93,343/- and Ex.13 for assessment year 2005-2006, wherein the total income of the deceased was shown as Rs.1,80,080/- (Return filed after the death of the deceased on

15.06.2005.)

15. 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 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, more particularly when 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 to compute the compensation.

16. Further, the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (6 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008] to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forwarded looking to the unlike tortuous 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 to be Rs.2,500/- per month.

17. However, the ITR for the assessment year 2005–2006 (Ex.- 13) was filed posthumously, four months after the accident, and is not considered. Moreover, that ITR (Ex.-13) shows an unexplained increase in income of approximately Rs. 87,000 within one year, without any supporting document or logical reasoning. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not safe to rely on ITR (Ex.-13) filed after the accident on 04.02.2005, at the same time it would be improper to discard the ITR filed before the accident (Ex.-12). Accordingly, the deceased’s income is assessed as reflected in ITR (Ex.-12), namely Rs. 93,343 per annum. Thus, the loss of income is to be calculated on the basis of the Income Tax Return filed during the deceased’s lifetime, which yields a monthly income of Rs. 7,778 as per the ITR for assessment year 2004–2005 (Ex.-12).

18. This view is fortified by the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Surjit Singh Vs. Dwarka Prasad reported in (2006) ACJ 2409, where it was held that the Tribunal rightly refused to consider the ITRs filed nearly seven months after the death of the deceased. Similarly, in the judgment of Smt. Ujala Bakshi Vs. Nirmal Singh reported [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (7 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008] in FAO No.393/2006, whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the income of the deceased based on the income tax return filed for the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the deceased died. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the ITRs Ex.12 is perverse in the eye of the law, and accordingly, set aside.

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. If the facts of the case are considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation awarded in the impugned order needs to be suitably enhanced.

21. After taking into consideration the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be extended to some extent, and the same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of income Rs.7,778x12x17=15,86,712/- Deduction (Personal expense) (1/3)(-) (-)Rs.5,28,904/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.4,23,123/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000x3) Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,30,931/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.3,96,568/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.12,34,363/- [2025:RJ-JP:25893] (8 of 8) [CMA-1275/2008]

22. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the ITRs are set aside, accordingly, the award passed by the learned Tribunal below with regard to the findings recorded qua Issue No.3 is modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.16,30,931/- from the original amount of Rs.3,96,568/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.12,34,363/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims 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.12,34,363/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until 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 a pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

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

24. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /32 (MANEESH SHARMA),J