Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Mani Bai Rajput vs Dasrathi Sunani on 6 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by
SYED
ROSHAN
2025:CGHC:39126
ZAMIR ALI
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 10.7.2025
Order Delivered on 06/08/2025
MAC No. 1049 of 2020
1. Smt. Mani Bai Rajput W/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 45
Years
2. Sagar Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 26
Years
3. Akash Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 23
Years
4. Abhay Singh Rajput S/o Nohar Singh Rajput Aged About 17
Years (Now Aged About 18 Years),
All R/o Ward No. 23, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, Police
Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants-claimants
versus
1. Dasrathi Sunani S/o Senapati Sunani Aged About 30 Years
R/o Amadhola, Police Station Junagarh, Kalahandi (Odisha),
(Driver Of Offending Tanker No. CG-04, LJ-5151),
2. Pankaj Kumar Jha S/o Shardanand Jha R/o Shriram Nagar,
Shanker Nagar, Raipur , Police Station Shanker Nagar, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Tanker
No. CG-04, LJ-5151),
3. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Madina Building, Kachhari Chowk , Jail Road, Raipur District
2
Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Tanker No. CG-04,
LJ-5151),
4. Nohar Singh Rajput S/o Manmohan Singh Rajput Aged About
50 Years At Present R/o Mandir Hasaud , Police Station
Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Ms.Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
CAV Order
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.03.2020 in Claim Case No.H-
24/2019
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short ‘the Act of 1988’) for the death of Shekhar Singh
Rajput in accident dated 25.7.2018 which allegedly occurred
on account of rash and negligent act on the part of non-
applicant No.1 in driving tanker bearing registration mark CG-
04, LJ-5151 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). It is averred
that Bhimsen Pandey was going on his motorcycle to Raipur
from Mahasamund, his motorcycle was dashed by offending
vehicle near Bhagat Petrol Pump due to rash and negligent
driving by its driver, as a result Bhimsen sustained grievous
3
injuries and died in the hospital while undergoing treatment.
At the time of accident, Shekhar Singh Rajput was 26 years
old bachelor, working as Manager in Yash Transport,
Mahasamund, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to his
untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income.
3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending
vehicle, have jointly filed reply to claim application pleading
that claim application is filed on false and frivolous grounds.
Deceased himself was driving motorcycle negligently, as a
result he lost control over it and fell down. At time of accident,
non-applicant No.1-driver, was possessing valid and effective
driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-
applicant No.3 and since the offending vehicle was plied on
road as per terms of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is
liable to indemnify the insured.
4. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company filed its reply to
claim application pleading that all the claimants being major
were not dependent on the income of deceased. At the time
of accident, deceased was not wearing helmet. Accident did
not occur with the offending vehicle. This apart, driver of
offending vehicle was not having valid driving license on the
date of accident.
5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on
record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident
4
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by its driver, there was no violation of any condition of
insurance policy and accordingly, allowed application in part,
awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.15,48,000/- and non-
applicants were made liable, jointly and severally, to pay the
amount of compensation to claimants.
6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that the
deceased was 26 years old, earning Rs.30,000/- per month
and in support thereof, the claimants have produced the
income tax return, however, the Claims Tribunal did not rely
upon the income shown in income tax return and erroneously
assessed the income of deceased on notional basis. In
support of her submission, she relied upon decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, reported in reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 23 wherein it is held that monthly income could
be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details
of the payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence
so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in
accordance with law. She submits that the deduction towards
the personal expenses of the deceased, considering the
number of dependents being ‘4’ should have been only one-
third and not one-half as deducted by the Claims Tribunal.
The Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to
5
appellant No.2 to 3, brother of deceased, and only awarded
Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to appellant No.1, mother
of deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, she prays that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be
enhanced suitably.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 has supported the award passed by the
Claims Tribunal. He contended that income tax returns
submitted on behalf of the claimants do not bear any rubber
stamp and signature of the Income Tax Department.
Referring to provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he
submits that if the income tax return is not submitted within
stipulated time, then without there being due acknowledgment
by the Income Tax Department, mere e-filing of ITR-V without
signature, will not be considered as “e-return’ or proof of tax.
He submits that income tax return brought on record by the
claimants do not contain any acknowledgment of e-return of
income tax or signature of deceased and thus, it is simply a
form of ITR-V which cannot be treated as income tax return
filed on behalf of the deceased. Hence, the Claims Tribunal
rightly not relied upon the income tax return for assessing
income of deceased. In support of his submissions, he relied
upon the decision in case of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra)
and Sangita Arya vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
6
(2020) 5 SCC 327.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record of claim case including impugned award.
9. So far as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned,
the claimants have pleaded that deceased was working as
Manager in Yash Transport and also running transportation
business individually. Claimants have not produced any
documentary evidence nor examined proprietor of Yash
Transport to prove engagement of deceased as Manager in
Yash Transport and earning therefrom. However, in order to
prove income of deceased from self-business, claimants have
produced income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-
15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are marked as
Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19. In these income tax returns, gross total
income of the deceased is shown as Rs.1,14,500/-,
Rs.1,63,450/-, Rs.2,58,150/- and Rs.3,13,640/- respectively.
In order to prove these income tax returns, the claimants
have examined Bharat Sahu (AW-2), who had prepared and
filed income tax returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) on behalf of the
deceased. According to this witness, since the year 2014-15
deceased was engaged in wholesale business of selling fruits
and vegetables in the name and style of ‘S.S. Traders’ and he
has prepared the income tax returns on the basis of
information made available by the deceased. He has deposed
7
that for the income as disclosed by the deceased, there was
no need of books of accounts. In Para-7 of his cross-
examination, he has given details as to how the accounts
were settled and how gross income of deceased has been
shown as Rs.3,13,540/- i.e. income from business plus
income from other sources. He has deposed that income tax
returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) were submitted online, which do
not require signature of assesee.
10. The Claims Tribunal considered notional income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and did not consider the
income tax returns submitted by the claimants recording that
these income tax returns contain estimated income of
deceased, particulars of income and expenses are not
furnished, nominal tax of Rs.490/- has been paid in Ex.P-19
and therefore, definite assessment of the income of the
deceased could not be made on the basis of income tax
returns (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) because such types of income
tax returns are maintained by struggling youth for many other
purposes. This finding of the Claims Tribunal is not only
absurd but not germane to the compensatory jurisprudence
with regard to the claim application filed under Section 166 of
the Act of 1988.
11. It is well settled that Income Tax Returns, which contain
declaration of income by Income Tax Assessee, is a statutory
8
document filed in compliance of statutory obligation and the
determination of annual income of deceased in claim
proceeding must proceed on the basis of income tax return
wherever available.
12. In case of Kalpanaraj and others vs. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764, the
High Court negated the approach of the Tribunal in
determining monthly income of deceased on notional basis
instead of income tax returns, which was only available
documentary evidence on record of monthly income, and in
such circumstance, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
High Court was correct to determine monthly income on the
basis of income tax return. Relevant portion of Para-6 and 8
of the said decision are relevant and the same are
reproduced herein-below for ready reference:-
“6.The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred
in relying upon the statement of evidence of the
wife of the deceased to determine the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- instead
of relying upon the income shown in the income
tax return….”
8. It is pertinent to note that the only available
documentary evidence on record of the monthly
income fo the deceased is the income tax return
filed by him with the Income Tax Department.
The High Court was correct, therefore, to
determine the monthly income on the basis of
9
the income tax return….”
13. Recently, in case of Smt. Anjali and others vs. Lokendra
Rathor, reported in 2022 SCC Online C 1683 , Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed thus:-
“9.The Tribunal and the High Court both
committed grave error while estimating the
deceased’s income by disregarding the Income
Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had
filed the Income Tax Return (2009- 2010) of the
deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual
income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/-
per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & ors (supra)
has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a
statutory document on which reliance be placed,
where available, for computation of annual
income. In Malarvizhi (supra), this Court has laid
as under:
“10. …We are in agreement with the High
Court that the determination must proceed on
the basis of the MACT No.648/2018 Mithlesh
& Ors. Vs. Jitender Singh & Ors. Page No. 18
of 34 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.”
14. Upon testing the facts of present case on the touchstone of
the factors laid down in above decisions, this Court is of the
view that that the Claims Tribunal committed grave error in
disbelieving the income tax return while assessing the income
of deceased. A glance of income tax return (Ex.P-16) would
reveal that claimants along with income tax return has
10
attached computation of total income and acknowledgment of
receipt of the ITR-V issued by the Central Processing Centre,
Income Tax Department for and on behalf of the
Commissioner of Income Tax, ITD-CPC, Bangalore. As per
this acknowledgment receipt, date of e-filing is 5.9.2015 and
date of receipt at CPC, Bangalore is 16.9.2015. This receipt
contains a note at the bottom that “this is a computer
generated email and needs no signature’. As per E-Filing of
Return Scheme of CBDT, where the return is filed
electronically without digital signature, on successful
transmission the computer shall generate acknowledgment in
form ITR-V. Thus, from the copy of the acknowledgment of
the receipt of said ITR-V issued by the CPC, receipt of the
same on 16.9.2015 and e-filing of the income tax return for
assessment year -2014-15 on 05.9.2015 is clearly evident.
Similarly is the position in respect of income tax returns
(Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-19).
15. Section 140 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides as to the
verification of the return, according to which, the return under
Section 115WD or Section 139 shall be verified in case of an
individual by the individual himself. Perusal of income tax
returns brought on record by claimants would reveal that the
deceased has verified the return as per contained verification
from the deceased. Thus the requirement of Section 140 of
11
the Act of 1961 has also been satisfied at the time of filing of
return. Therefore, merely because the signature of deceased
were not appearing on income tax returns, Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-
19, or only nominal tax was paid during a particular
assessment year, no adverse inference could have been
drawn as to the above said Income Tax returns containing
seal of acknowledgment from the Income Tax Department,
particularly when the claim proceedings are in the nature of
inquiry to unearth the truth for awarding just compensation.
Hence, rejection of income tax returns for technical
considerations would be rather contrary to very purpose of
the Act of 1988. It is well settled that a person can tell lie but
document cannot and when there is any documentary
evidence, no amount of oral evidence to that effect can be
considered. Thus, the Claims Tribunal should have accepted
the annual income of deceased, as reflecting in Income Tax
return (Ex.P-19).
16. As far as reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent
No.3 on decision of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra) is
concerned, in that case xerox of income tax returns was filed
which were disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal and the High
Court. Said approach was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In
case at hand, the claimants have filed income tax returns
along with acknowledgment receipt issued on the letter head
12
of Income Tax Department. They have also examined Income
Tax Advisor as AW-2 to prove filing of the returns etc. There is
no rebuttal evidence by the respondent Insurance Company
to show that the contents of said Income- Tax Returns were
not correct. Hence, the said decision is of no help to the
respondent No.3 being distinguishable on facts of present
case.
17. In view of above, taking into account the ITR filed on behalf of
the deceased for the assessment year 2017-18, this Court
proposes to assess income of deceased as Rs.3,04,780/- per
annum. It can be gathered from the ITR for the year 2017-18
that a sum of Rs.492/- was paid as income tax, which is
deductible from the income of deceased and accordingly,
after deducting a sum of Rs.492/- from the annual income of
deceased, net income of deceased for the purpose of
computation of compensation under the head of loss of
dependency would come to Rs.3,04,288/-. It is ordered
accordingly.
18. On the date of accident, deceased was 26 years old
unmarried boy, therefore, addition of 40% towards future
prospects, deduction of one-half towards personal expenses
and application of multiplier ’17’ is in consonance with the
principles governing computation of loss of dependency.
Compensation awarded under other heads i.e. loss of estate
13
and funeral expenses, is also in consonance with the law and
needs no interference. The Claims Tribunal though held that
parents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation of
consortium but awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- only towards
loss of consortium. It is well settled that in case of death of a
child in a road traffic accident, the parents are entitled for a
sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘filial consortium’.
Hence, the Claims Tribunal erred in awarded only Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, it is ordered that
appellant No.1 and respondent No.4, who are mother and
father of deceased, will be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of filial consortium.
19.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,04,288/-
per annum and after adding 40% towards future prospects,
monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.4,26,003/-.
Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by
the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-half, loss of
dependency would come to Rs.2,13,001/-. Applying multiplier
of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency
would be Rs.36,21,017/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 and
respondent No.4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each
14
towards filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount,
appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for
funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus,
total amount of compensation for which now appellants-
claimants are entitled for, comes to Rs.37,31,071/- This
enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8%
p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made.
Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall
remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant
to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of
compensation as awarded above.
21.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the
impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated
above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-