MACA/497/2010 of RENU JAIN Vs DEVILAL GOSWAMI on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026 Order No.

19.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed in MAC Case No.48 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Bargarh.

3. By filing the abovenoted appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant-Appellants have approached this court thereby challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants, at the outset, contended that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly, as a result of which, the entire compensation has been calculated on the basis of a very low income of the deceased. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the claimant- Appellants submitted before this Court that the present appeal has been filed confining challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5. The factual background of the present case, in short, is that on the fateful day, i.e., 11.04.2008 at about 10:30 AM, one Ganesh Kumar Jain, the deceased, who was travelling in a motor cycle with his cousin, namely, Rahul Kumar Jain from his house towards Sambalpur met with an accident with one trailer bearing Registration No.RJ-31-GA-2187. As a result of such collusion, the deceased succumbed to the injury at the spot, while the pillion rider succumbed to death on his way to the hospital. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased-Ganesh Kumar Jain, initially approached the learned Tribunal by filing MAC No.48 of 2008 claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the claimants took a ground that it is due to the negligence of the offending vehicle that the deceased met with an accident. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injury. It was also contended that a police case has been initiated bearing Attabira P.S Case No.63 of 2008, which corresponds to G.R Case No.287 of 2008, and the driver of the offending vehicle has been charge- sheeted under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. In the claim application, the claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with other statutory benefits as is due and admissible to the claimants.

6. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed in MAC No.48 of 2008 after taking evidence from both sides and upon framing three issues arrived at a finding that the accident has resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck/ trailer. However, no definite finding was arrived at with regard to contributory negligence due to absence of eye witness at the spot. Only an inference has been drawn with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the motor cycle. With regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal, after a detailed and elaborate discussion of the materials placed before it, has arrived at a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. Although such assessment of the age of the deceased was challenged by the claimants-appellants before the Tribunal relying upon the age reflected in the acknowledgement of the IT return. However, the learned Tribunal, referring to the age determined in the post mortem examination report, arrived at a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 40 years. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has applied 13 multipliers taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 40 years. Learned counsel for the appellants- claimants have also disputed the applicability of 13 multipliers to the facts of the present case on the ground that even accepting for the sake argument that the age of the deceased was 40 years, 15 multipliers would be applicable in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

7. So far the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased has taken into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants- appellants. The claimants-appellants relied upon the income tax return of the deceased of the assessment year 2007-08 which was marked as Exhibit 2. Such income tax return reveals that the deceased had filed a return showing his gross-income as Rs.1,19,900/- per annum. Though no other relevant document relating to the income and nature of the business of the deceased was produced before the learned Tribunal to arrive at a definite conclusion with regard to his nature of business and the actual income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, after elaborate discussion, rejected the income tax return of the deceased filed by the claimants claiming that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,19,000/- per annum as per such income tax return. Finally, the income of the deceased has been assessed notionally and fixed at Rs.36,000/- per annum by taking into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month in the year 2008.

8. Such fixation of income of the deceased has been seriously challenged by the claimants-appellants in the present appeal. It was contended that the family of the deceased was having a business where they were earning a good income. He further referred to the income tax return, which is a statutory document and accepted by the income tax authorities, and contended that as per the income tax return, the gross income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs.1,19,000/- which has been completely ignored and rejected by the learned Tribunal while assessing of the income of the deceased. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants submitted before this Court that the income tax return of the deceased, which is a statutory document, should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while assessing the income, particularly, in the absence of any other material to the contrary either produced from the side of the claimants or the other respondent-insurance company. On such ground, learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants submitted before this Court that the finding with regard to the income is required to be set aside and the income as has been reflected in the income tax return, i.e., in Form No.ITR-4 be accepted as the income of the deceased while calculating the total compensation payable to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- Insurance company, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality while delivering the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2010. While supporting the judgment of the learned Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance company submitted before this Court that claimant-Appellants failed to produce any conclusive material to establish the nature of the business activity that was being carried on by the deceased and that no conclusive evidence was adduced before the learned Tribunal to help the Tribunal to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the income of the deceased at the time accident occurred. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the income tax return submitted from the side of the appellants-Claimant before the learned Tribunal. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the appellants drawing attention of this Court to para-14 of the judgment in MAC No.48 of 2008 submitted before this Court before rejecting the IT acknowledgement filed by the claimant-Appellants, the learned

Tribunal has elaborately discussed as to how and why the same is not reliable. Moreover, in the absence of any conclusive evidence with regard to the nature of the business and the income derived therefrom by the deceased, the learned Tribunal has adopted the notional method as the Tribunal was left with no other option to assess the actual income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance company fairly conceded that the Tribunal has committed an illegality by applying 13 multipliers. He further submitted that although the Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased to be 40 years as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the correct multiplier for the age (36-40) would be 15 multipliers.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions, further on an analysis of the settled legal position and on a conspectus of the series of Supreme Court judgments with regard to the fixation of the income as well as the correct multiplier to be adopted, this Court, upon a careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the claimant-Appellants, found that the question that falls for determination in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation alone since none of the parties dispute the fixation of liability on the insurance company. While proceeding to determine the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, this Court examined the impugned judgment and the discussion made by the learned Tribunal at para-14 and 15 thereof. It is the matter of record that neither any specific evidence was adduced by the claimant side with regard to the income of the deceased, nor the nature of the

business carried on by the deceased was brought on record by either side. The only document with regard to the income that was filed before the learned Tribunal is the IT return of the year 2007- 08 which reveals that the deceased had submitted the income tax return for the assessment year 2007-08 showing his gross income to be Rs.1,19,000/-. Besides the above evidence there was no other material before learned Tribunal to notionally fix the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid income tax return has notionally fixed the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.36000/-.

11. In the consider view of this Court, the income tax return being a statutory document has evidentiary value. Therefore, the same should not have been simply discarded by the learned Tribunal while fixing the income of the deceased. Moreover, there is no other specific material or evidence to disbelieve such income tax return which was filed before the learned Tribunal. In the acknowledgement of income tax return for the assessment year 2007-08, the deceased had shown a gross income of Rs.1,19,000/-. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the fixation of the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- would be more realistic and appropriate and that the fixation of the annual income of deceased notionally at Rs.36000/- is much lower. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in fixing the income of the deceased per annum at Rs.1,00,000/-. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the learned Tribunal has committed an error by not applying the 15 multipliers.

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as legal position, further taking into consideration the re-fixation of the income as well as the multiplier to be applied, the total compensation to be paid to the claimant-Appellants needs to be recalculated. Accordingly, by taking into consideration the total annual income of the deceased to be Rs.1,00,000/-. The following calculation is made:- Heads Amount (in Rs.)

Total Annual Income 1,00,000/- -

Deduction (1/3rd of Annual Income) 34,000/-

Total 66,000/- +

Loss of Future prospect=40% (Annual Income (-) Deduction) 26,400/-

Total 92,400/-

Compensation amount after applying the multiplier ‘15’ to the Total Amount of Rs.92,400/- 13,86,000/- +

General Damage 70, 000/-

Total compensation amount 14,56,000/-

13. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company shall pay a compensation of Rs.14,56,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of claim application till actual payment after adjusting the amount, if any, paid in the meantime. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6%. Let the awarded amount be deposited before the Tribunal within eight weeks by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

14. Further taking into consideration the order of the learned Tribunal, the right of recovery granted to the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company is retained and the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is at liberty to exercise such right by initiating an appropriate proceeding before executing court. The total awarded amount shall be disbursed in the manner as would be directed by the learned Tribunal.

15. Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Aug-2026 19:21:56 Signature Not Verified