Smt. Mem Bano W/O Guljar Ahmad, Vs the New India Insurance Company Limited

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13832]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 410/2022

¶4

Smt. Mem Bano W/o Guljar Ahmad, Aged About 42 Years, 2. Mohammad Sohail S/o Guljar Ahmad, Aged About 18 Years,

¶5

Sana Fatima D/o Guljar Ahmad, Aged About 11 Years, 4. Mohammad Sakib S/o Guljar Ahmad, Aged About 9 Years, 5. Edee Bano W/o Kamruddin, Aged About 70 Years,

¶6

Kamruddin S/o Sulatan Khan, Aged About 72 Years, Claimants- Appellants No.3 & 4 are minor through their natural guardian/mother Memo Bano W/o Guljar Ahmad, R/o Plot No. C-47, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

-- -Claimants-Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Tonk Road, Jaipur. (Ins. Co. Van No. RJ-14-GG-8590)

¶10

Jitenda Kumar Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Chetan Nagar, Dholpur Road, Gram Baadi, Distt. Dholpur (Ra- jasthan) (Driver Van No. RJ-14-GG-8590)

¶11

Messers A One Nuts And Indibuls Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, G-59, Vishwakarma Induatrial Area Extension Badharna, Jaipur (Raj.) (Owner Van No. Rj-14-Gg8590)

¶12

-- -Non-Claimants-Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Ram Sharan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Ganesh Joshi

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment

¶15

02/04/2026

¶16

The present appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Essential Commodity Act, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No.

[2026:RJ-JP:13832]

[CMA-410/2022]

(2 of 6)

300/2016 (CIS No.33/2019) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.01.2016, at about 5:15 PM, when Guljar (since deceased) was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-14-WD-6187, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. RJ-14-GG-8590, being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Guljar succumbed to injuries. 3. The claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The non-claimants- respondents filed reply to the claim petition denying their liability. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and after appreciating the evidence on record, the claim petition was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.32,37,990/- was awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased by adopting an average of the income reflected in the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The learned Tribunal ought to have determined the annual income on the basis of the last Income Tax Return which reflected the highest income of the deceased. The gross income for the assessment year 2014-2015 was declared as

[2026:RJ-JP:13832]

[CMA-410/2022]

(3 of 6)

Rs.3,26,120/- and after deducting the Tax of Rs.4636/-, the net annual income for the same year was declared as Rs.3,21,484/-.

¶26

6.1 The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium whereas the compensation of Rs. 40,000/should be awarded to each of the claimants.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1- Insurance Company has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimants and has submitted that the learned Tribunal was justified in determining the annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency by taking the average income of last three years.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In respect of the first issue, raised by the counsel for the claimants, it is not in dispute that the claimants produced the Income Tax Returns of deceased for the last three assessment years i.e. 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. These income tax returns were filed by deceased himself with the Income Tax Department. It is also not in dispute that in the assessment year 2014-2015, the deceased had the highest income i.e. Rs.3,21,484/-.

¶29

In the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. , reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, affirmed the determination of annual income of the deceased on the basis of the Income Tax Return pertaining to the financial year, reflecting the highest

(4 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:13832]

[CMA-410/2022]

income. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced

¶34

hereunder:-

¶35

"6. In appeal, the High Court concluded that on an analysis of the income tax returns filed by the deceased for the financial years 1995-1996 to 2000-2001, the income declared for the financial year 1997-1998 was the highest and must be taken as the annual income of the deceased.........

¶36

xxx

¶37

10. ........The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs 2,11,131 in the relevant assessment year. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that other documents were marked which reflected the income of the deceased. We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for Assessment Year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased.”

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

In the case at hand, the highest income is reflected in the last Income Tax Return of the deceased. Therefore, relying on the judgment passed in Malarvizhi & Ors. (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the annual income for the purpose of determination of compensation should be calculated on the basis of the highest income of the deceased. Hence, Income Tax Return pertaining to the last assessment year i.e. 2014-2015, reflecting Rs. 3,21,484/-, shall be considered while calculating the same.

¶40

With regard to the second issue raised by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported

[2026:RJ-JP:13832]

[CMA-410/2022]

(5 of 6)

in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, each of the claimants is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as calculated hereunder:-

¶45

S.No.	Particular	Amount assessed
1.	Annual Income	Rs.3,21,484/-
2.	Add 25% towards future prospects (+)	Rs.3,21,484 + Rs.80,371 =Rs.4,01,855/-
3.	According to the age of the deceased i.e. 42 years, multiplier 14 to be applied	Rs.4,01,855 x 14 =Rs.56,25,970/-
4.	As per dependency, 1/4th income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased(-)	Rs.56,25,970 - Rs.14,06,493 =Rs.42,19,477/-
5.	Loss of consortium (six dependants)	Rs.40,000 x 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-
6.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs.44,89,477/-
	Less amount awarded by the Tribunal(-)	Rs.32,37,990/-
	Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs. 12,51,487/-

¶46

Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 12,51,487/- . The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today.

¶47