ITR is Statutory Document that must be considered while deciding Compensation

HELD THAT: The ITR (Income Tax Return), which is a 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.

BRIEF FACTS

1. On 04.12.1999, the deceased Rajesh Kumar, who used to work as Deputy Manager ('Dy. Manager') in Vikramnagar Post, Grasim Industries, Vikram Cements, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, while coming from Chittorgarh to Vikramnagar, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh in his car bearing number RJ-06-C-4742 was hit by a truck bearing number RJ-09-G-1176 near the Mangrol Bus Stand at 10:00 PM, on account of which he sustained injuries and thereafter succumbed to injuries.

2. His legal representatives filed a claim under Section 166 of MV Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 78,16,000/-. Learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 8,30,000/- to the appellant-claimants with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 18.04.2000, while observing that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-claimants have preferred the present appeal.

ARGUMENT OF COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT

4. Learned counsel submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in taking account the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,565/- per month, without taking into consideration the allowances such as conveyance, education, soft furnishing, newspaper, uniform, medical and jeep, etc. while relying upon Ex. 26, i.e. the Income Tax Returns ('ITR') furnished by the appellant-claimants for assessment year 1999-2000 in asmuch as AW2, Mr. Ramgopal Sharma, who was working as the Dy. Assistant Officer in Vikram Cements, Grasim Industries, Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, had clearly deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 16,500/- per month and every year, an annual increment of Rs. 1,000/- was payable.

5. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Sunil Sharma and Ors. Bachitar Singh and Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 425 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has calculated the income of the deceased while taking into consideration the perks and allowances including House-Rent, Dearness & City Compensatory and thus, he submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the income of the deceased without considering the allowances payable to him as a part of his salary.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 17 instead of 10, as the age of the deceased was 30 years, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the income added with the future prospects to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month, instead of taking 40% of his income as future prospects in the light of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680.

7. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side and thus, deserves to be enhanced in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra).

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT /INSURANCE COMPANY

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that although AW2, Shri Ramgopal Sharma had deposed in his statement that the deceased used to earn Rs. 16,500/- per month, however, there is a statutory document which has been produced by the appellant-claimants, signed by the deceased himself, i.e. the ITR which is inclusive of the allowances and perks and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased in accordance with the ITR (Ex.26). He also places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod [Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2022 decided on 06.12.2022] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that the ITR is a statutory document on which reliance has to be placed, where it is available, for the purpose of computing the annual income of the deceased.

9. The learned council for the insurance company further submitted that the multiplier of 16 should be taken instead of 17, inasmuch as the deceased was 30 years and 3 months old and thus, the age bracket of 31-35 years would be applicable and not, 26-30 years.

OBSERVATIONS & DECISION

10. This Court, upon perusal of the record, finds that there are two documents produced as evidence in order to demonstrate the income of the deceased at the time of his death, which include

i) the ITR filed for the Financial Year 1998-1999 and the assessment year 1999-2000 (Ex.26) and

ii) the Salary Certificate of the deceased as issued by the Assistant Vice-President (P&A) of Vikram Cement, unit of Grasim Industries Ltd., Vikramnagar P.O. Khor, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, Mr. S.K. Pandit who has also been examined by the appellant-claimant no. 1.

The precise question before this Court, with regard to the income of the deceased is, which document is to be taken into consideration, while calculating the loss of income of the deceased in the present case.

11. Upon perusal of the ITR (Ex.26) for the assessment year 1999-2000, this Court finds that it 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, in a prescribed format, i.e. Form No. 16, as stipulated by the statute, the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nevertheless, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the deceased had expired 9 months after the period for which the said ITR (Ex.26) had been filed, however, it is seen from the record that subsequent to the death of the deceased, no statutory document has been placed on record as he died on 04.12.1999.

12. A Salary Certificate has been produced by the appellant-claimants issued by Mr. S.K. Pandit, Assistant Vice President (P&A), Vikram Cement and bears his signature too, however, it becomes imperative to note here that out of the two documents produced before this Court, ITR (Ex.26) is a statutory document, presented in a format as prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 while the Salary Certificate is a document issued by the Mr. S.K. Pandit and thus, looking into this peculiar fact and taking into consideration the nature of both these documents, this Court deems it just to consider the ITR (Ex.26), which is a statutory document for the purpose of determining the income of the deceased. The ITR was filed on 25.06.1999, almost six months prior to the date of accident. 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.

13. 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 decided on 06.08.2024.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/claimants by the respondents jointly and severally, as determined by the learned Tribunal, is enhanced by Rs.15,87,341/- in the terms stated above. The enhanced amount shall carry the same interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition.

DISCLAIMER: The case law presented here is only for sharing information with readers. The views expressed here are personal views of the author , shall not be considered as professional advice. In case of necessity do consult with professionals for more understanding and clarity on subject matter.