2025 (6) TMI 674 - SC - Indian Laws

Motor accident claim - Seeking adequate compensation - determination of the income of the deceased - deceased was the only earning member of the family being a Mechanical Engineer by profession - High Court incorrectly observed that Income Tax Returns cannot be accepted as proof of income - HELD THAT - We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the deceased. It has been clarified in Malarvizhi Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ors. 2019 (12) TMI 1692 - SUPREME COURT that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when available being a statutory document. More recently this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand 2025 (1) TMI 1562 - SUPREME COURT while determining the income of the deceased On a perusal of the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the Financial Year 2012-2013 annexed at Annexure P2 his gross total income is seen to be Rs. 1, 98, 192/- per annum. In the light of the above expositions of law his income is therefore fixed at Rs. 1, 98, 192/- per annum. Thus the difference in compensation is as allowed. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated 14th August 2015 passed in MVC No.1858/2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and IInd Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Mangalore D.K. as affirmed vide the impugned order stands modified in terms of the above. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the income of the deceased should be determined based on the Income Tax Returns submitted, despite the lower courts' reluctance to accept them as proof of income.
• The appropriate method for computing compensation in a motor accident claim, including the calculation of future prospects, deductions, and application of multipliers.
• The correctness of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) and upheld by the High Court.
• The admissibility and evidentiary value of Income Tax Returns in determining the deceased's income for compensation purposes.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Determination of the Deceased's Income Based on Income Tax Returns

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the authoritative precedent set in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. which clarified that when Income Tax Returns (ITRs) are available, the income determination must proceed on the basis of such statutory documents. Further, the Court relied on a recent decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, which emphasized that monthly income can be fixed using tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence, enabling the Tribunal or Court to calculate income in accordance with law.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court's approach that discounted the Income Tax Returns as proof of income. It held that ITRs are statutory documents and must be accepted unless convincingly disproved. The Court examined the ITR of the deceased for the relevant financial year, which showed a gross total income of Rs. 1,98,192 per annum.

Key evidence and findings: The Income Tax Return annexed as Annexure P2 was pivotal. The deceased's declared income was Rs. 1,98,192 per annum, which was significantly higher than the Rs. 90,000 per annum income considered by the Tribunal and High Court.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle from the cited precedents and fixed the deceased's income at Rs. 1,98,192 per annum, rejecting the lower courts' findings.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Claimant-Appellants argued that the deceased was a Mechanical Engineer earning up to Rs. 5,00,000 per annum as per ITRs, while the Respondents contended that the Tribunal's lower income assessment was justified. The Court found the Tribunal's and High Court's rejection of ITRs unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: The income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 1,98,192 per annum based on the Income Tax Returns.

Issue 2: Computation of Compensation including Future Prospects, Deductions, and Multiplier

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court applied the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which provides a comprehensive framework for calculating compensation, including consideration of future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and application of an appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recalculated compensation using the fixed income of Rs. 1,98,192 per annum. It added 25% for future prospects (appropriate for the deceased's age of 47), resulting in Rs. 2,47,740. One-third deduction was applied to account for personal expenses, reducing the figure to Rs. 1,65,160. Using a multiplier of 13 (corresponding to the deceased's age), the loss of dependency was calculated as Rs. 21,47,080.

Key evidence and findings: The Court took into account medical expenses (Rs. 1,73,100), loss of estate (Rs. 18,150), funeral expenses (Rs. 18,150), and loss of consortium (Rs. 96,800) as additional heads of compensation.

Application of law to facts: By applying the established compensation formula, the Court arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 24,53,280, significantly higher than the Rs. 13,91,300 awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondents did not dispute the components of compensation but relied on the lower income figure. The Court's acceptance of the statutory income figure led to a commensurate increase in compensation.

Conclusion: The compensation was recalculated and enhanced to Rs. 24,53,280 in accordance with the legal principles governing motor accident claims.

Issue 3: Validity of the High Court's Observation that Income Tax Returns Cannot Be Accepted as Proof of Income

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relied upon the precedent in Malarvizhi & Ors. and Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand which recognize Income Tax Returns as valid statutory evidence of income, subject to proper proof of tax payment details.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the High Court's categorical rejection of Income Tax Returns as proof of income was erroneous. ITRs are statutory records and must be accepted unless there is cogent evidence to the contrary.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the Income Tax Return was duly annexed and no contrary evidence was produced to discredit it.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal principle that statutory documents like ITRs carry presumptive correctness and should be relied upon for income determination.

Treatment of competing arguments: The High Court's contrary view was not supported by any legal precedent or sufficient reasoning.

Conclusion: The High Court's observation rejecting Income Tax Returns as proof of income was set aside.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when available, being a statutory document."

"Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law."

Core principles established include:

• Income Tax Returns are valid and primary evidence for determining the income of the deceased in motor accident compensation claims.
• The compensation calculation must follow established legal principles involving future prospects, appropriate deductions, and multipliers based on age.
• Tribunals and Courts must not arbitrarily reject statutory documents like ITRs without cogent reasons.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• The deceased's income was fixed at Rs. 1,98,192 per annum based on Income Tax Returns.
• The compensation payable to the Claimant-Appellants was recalculated and enhanced to Rs. 24,53,280.
• The impugned orders of the Tribunal and High Court were modified accordingly.