Income Tax Return Can Be Taken Into Consideration While Calculating Loss Of Income Of Deceased In Motor Accident Cases: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the Income Tax Return, which is a statutory document, is required to be considered for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased in cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Jodhpur Bench of the High Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) assailing the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs 8,30,000, in favour of appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6 %.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati held, “This Court is thus of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the ITR for the A.Y. 1999-2000 for the purpose of assessing the salary of the deceased.”
Senior Advocate Ravi Bhansali represented the Appellant while Advocate Jagdish Vyas represented the Respondent-Insurance Company.
The facts indicated that one Rajesh Kumar, who used to work as Deputy Manager in Vikramnagar Post, Grasim Industries was hit by a truck on account of which he sustained injuries and thereafter succumbed to injuries. His legal representatives filed a claim under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 78,16,000. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs 8.3 lakh as compensation while observing that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-claimants preferred the appeal.
It was the case of the claimants that the Tribunal erred in taking into account the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,565per month, without taking into consideration the allowances such as conveyance, education, soft furnishing, newspaper, uniform, medical and jeep, etc.. Reliance was also placed upon the Income Tax Returns (ITR) furnished by the appellant-claimants for assessment year 1999-2000. The claimants also submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not taking into consideration the salary certificate, which had been duly signed by the Assistant Vice President (P&A) of Vikram Cements, which clearly mentioned the consolidated salary of the deceased to be Rs. 1,97,272.00 per annum.
One of the main issues before the Bench was whether the ITR or the Salary Certificate was to be taken into consideration while calculating the loss of income of the deceased.
Referring to the ITR, the Bench noticed that the ITR for the assessment year 1999-2000 is a statutory document which has been filed by the deceased himself, showing his income for the assessment year 1999-2000 to be Rs.1,22,953-without deducting Rs.21,000 as standard deductions as provided under Section 16(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The salary certificate was produced by the appellant-claimants issued by the Assistant Vice President (P&A) of Vikram Cement and had his signature too. The ITR was filed in a format as prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 while the Salary Certificate was a document issued by the Assistant Vice President (P&A), Vikram Cement.
“This Court finds that the ITR (Ex.26), which is statutory document, is required to be considered for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased, which is inclusive of perquisites and allowances, in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. : Civil Appeal No.8473 of 2024”, the Bench held.
Thus, the High Court took the income of the deceased as mentioned in the ITR (Ex.26) Rs.1,22,953 after deducting the tax paid inasmuch as it was a statutory and reliable evidence produced by the appellant-claimants themselves.
Applying the multiplier of 17 while calculating the loss of income of the deceased., the Bench enhanced the compensation awarded towards the future expenses, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench enhanced the compensation by Rs.15,87,341 alongwith interest.
Cause Title: Sudha, w/o late Rajesh Kumar Ajmera vs. Prakash Chandra [Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:42872]
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Ravi Bhansali, Advocates Shubham Modi, Rohin Bhansali, Udit Mathur & Mohd. Amaan
Respondent: Advocate Jagdish Vyas