Sushma Dewangan vs. Jiveshraj Suryavanshi

Facts

The appellants, representing the deceased Krishna Kumar Dewangan, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for his death in a road accident on November 19, 2022. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 12,55,545/-. The appellants contended that the deceased, an accountant, had an annual income of Rs. 4,46,680/-, supported by Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, filed prior to the accident. They argued that the Tribunal erroneously disregarded these ITRs as photocopies and assessed the deceased's monthly income at a low Rs. 6,000/-. The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) argued that the ITRs were unverified photocopies, lacking certified copies or examination of the CA or Income Tax Officer, making them inadmissible. They also contended that future prospects should be calculated at 25% instead of 40% due to the deceased being an independent businessman.

Held

The Court held that the Income Tax Returns (Exhibits P-1 and P-2), though photocopies, were not unreliable. The testimony of Chartered Accountant Mayank Agarwal (AW-2) corroborated that the deceased worked as an accountant for various firms and managed GST and Income Tax filings. The ITRs bore barcodes and were filed prior to the accident, making them verifiable. The Court found no specific denial regarding the deceased's work and profession. Therefore, the ITRs were deemed reliable for determining income. The deceased's average annual income was calculated at Rs. 4,48,180/-, based on the ITRs and Mayank Agarwal's statement, rejecting the Tribunal's assessment of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Considering the deceased's age of 40 years, future prospects were calculated at 25% as per *National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others*, leading to an enhanced annual income of Rs. 5,60,225/- after adding future prospects. After deducting income tax (Rs. 25,527/-) and personal expenses (1/4th), the annual income was Rs. 4,01,024/-. Applying a multiplier of 15, the compensation for loss of dependency was Rs. 60,15,360/-. Including other conventional heads (Rs. 2,53,000/-), the total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 62,68,360/-. Regarding the 'Pay and Recover' principle, the Court noted that while the driver lacked a valid license, the vehicle was insured. Following *Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited* and *Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd*, the insurance company was directed to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner/driver.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Income Tax Returns (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) filed by the deceased, Krishna Kumar Dewangan, prior to the accident, are admissible as evidence to determine his income, despite being photocopies and not accompanied by certified copies or examination of the filing authority? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of evidence and proof of income). 2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- when substantial evidence, including ITRs and the testimony of a Chartered Accountant, indicated a significantly higher income? (Question of law and fact, turning on the assessment of evidence). 3. Whether the principle of 'Pay and Recover' should be applied in light of the driver/owner not possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident, despite the vehicle being insured? (Question of law, turning on principles of insurance law and liability). Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: - The ITRs for AY 2021-2022 and AY 2022-2023, filed before the accident, accurately reflect the deceased's annual income of Rs. 4,46,680/-. - The Tribunal erred by disregarding these ITRs solely because they were photocopies. - The testimony of CA Mayank Soni corroborated the deceased's income as an accountant. - The assessed monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- is perverse and exceptionally low. - Reliance was placed on *New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand* and *Rashmirekha Tripathy & Anr. vs. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.*. - The principle of 'Pay and Recover' should be applied due to the driver's lack of a valid license. Revenue/State (Insurance Company) Arguments: - Lack of clear and reliable evidence regarding the deceased's work and associated firms. - No certified copies of ITRs were produced, and neither the CA nor an Income Tax Officer was examined to prove their authenticity. - Unverified photocopies of ITRs are inadmissible. - The deceased was an independent filer/businessman, not a salaried employee. - Reliance on *Rashmirekha* is misplaced as it does not warrant assessing income solely on unverified ITRs. - The Tribunal's assessed monthly income is just and appropriate. - Future prospects should be calculated at 25% for a 40-year-old, not 40%.