An appeal was filed challenging the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the calculated compensation for his family due to his untimely death in a motor accident. The appellant insurer argued that the deceased’s income was inaccurately assessed, but the Tribunal upheld the original assessment based on available records.

1. Background of the Case

• Incident:
  The deceased, Rajkumar, suffered fatal injuries when the motorcycle he was a pillion passenger on was struck by a tanker. An FIR was filed against the tanker driver under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Claimants:
  The deceased’s family, including his parents (Respondents 1 and 2) and minor siblings (Respondents 3 and 4), filed the claim.

2. Income of the Deceased

• Sources of Income:
  Rajkumar earned a monthly salary of Rs.4,500 from his position as a cashier at Trimurti Engineering Contractors, and he also had additional income as a supervisor in water supply.
• Income Documentation:
  A single income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 was submitted as evidence through Tax Consultant Mangesh Nene, establishing an annual income of Rs.1,15,640.

3. Arguments on Appeal

• Appellant’s Contentions (Mr. Mehta for Insurance Company):
  1. The income tax return for only one year was produced, while returns for three years could have clarified average income.
  2. The return produced was for the financial year 2009-10, not covering the exact accident date in October 2010.
• Respondent’s Defense (Mr. Mendon):
  Supported the Tribunal’s reliance on the single income tax return, noting it as a valid public document for income assessment.

4. Tribunal’s Decision and Analysis

• Assessment of Income:
  The Tribunal maintained that the available single return provided sufficient basis to assess the income. It ruled that lack of returns for additional years does not preclude a valid income assessment.
• Calculation of Compensation:
  The Tribunal calculated compensation using a 50% increase for future prospects and considered two-thirds dependency, given the deceased was a bachelor. An 18-year multiplier was applied, with professional tax deducted, resulting in a compensation of Rs.20,68,720 for the deceased’s parents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal’s decision underscored that income can be determined based on available records, even if they are incomplete, when other reasonable assessments cannot be made. The Tribunal appropriately applied the principles of dependency ratio, future prospects, and multiplier, as per established guidelines, especially in cases where no further income records were presented.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 279 – Rash driving or riding on a public way.
  • Section 304-A – Causing death by negligence.
• Motor Vehicles Act:
  • Section 184 – Driving dangerously.

Subjects:

Motor Accident Claim, Income Assessment, Dependency Calculation

Accident Compensation, Dependency Ratio, Income Tax Return, Multiplier Method, Future Prospects, Tribunal Decision