Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original claimants, filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand, in MACP No. 276 of 2010. The claim petition arose from a fatal accident on 21.02.2010, when the deceased Alaybhai was travelling in a Verna Car (GJ-23-A-7646) and a truck (WB-23-B-5956) driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side dashed into the car, causing his death. A complaint was registered as I-CR No.27/2010 at Vasad Police Station. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs. 10,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, which showed an annual income of Rs. 1,20,000/-, and instead adopted a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The High Court, after hearing learned advocates Mr. J. M. Thakkar for the appellants and Mr. R. P. Raval for the respondent-insurance company, held that the Tribunal ought to have relied on the Income Tax Returns as they were reliable documentary evidence. The court determined the income at Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum, added 40% towards future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi), applied a multiplier of 17 (as per Sarla Verma), deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, and enhanced conventional damages from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. The total compensation was recalculated at Rs. 17,08,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Determination of Income - Income Tax Returns - The Tribunal erred in not considering the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, which showed income of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. The High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have relied on the documentary evidence rather than adopting notional income. (Paras 5-6) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Addition of 40% - Following the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, the High Court added 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was self-employed and aged 27 years. (Para 7) C) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Application of 17 - As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., for the age group of 21-25 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18, but the deceased was 27 years old, so multiplier of 17 applied. (Para 8) D) Motor Accident Compensation - Deduction for Personal Expenses - 1/3rd Deduction - Since the deceased was married and had three dependents, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. (Para 9) E) Motor Accident Compensation - Conventional Heads - Enhancement - The High Court enhanced compensation under conventional heads from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- as per Pranay Sethi. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for determining income and in awarding just compensation?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand in MACP No. 276 of 2010 is modified. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 17,08,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence for determining income of deceased
- Tribunal must consider documentary evidence over notional income
- Future prospects addition as per Pranay Sethi
- Multiplier as per Sarla Verma
- Deduction for personal expenses
- Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 appeal
