Page No.# 1/4 vs Xxx
2022 Latest Caselaw 1407 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010182612019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : MACApp./604/2019

            MST. SAFURA KHATOON @ SUGURA KHATUN AND 2 ORS
            W/O MD. MAJAHAR HUSSAIN, R/O VILL. DUMUNICHOUKI, P.S. SIPAKHAR,
            DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM

            2: MAJAHAR HUSSAIN
             S/O LT. RAMJAN ALI
             R/O VILL. DUMUNICHOUKI
             P.S. SIPAKHAR
             DIST. DARRANG
            ASSAM

            3: TINA BEGUM
             D/O MD. MAJAHAR HUSSAIN
             R/O VILL. DUMUNICHOUKI
             P.S. SIPAKHAR
             DIST. DARRANG
            ASSAM (APPELLANT NO. 3 IS REP. BY THE APPELLANT NO. 1

            VERSUS

            xxx
            xx

            3:M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
             HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D MONDAL

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M DUTTA
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4




                                        BEFORE




                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

28.04.2022

Heard Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 02.05.2019 passed by the MACT No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 839/2015.

3. On 06.03.2015, at about 7.30 PM, the deceased Nur Islam Ali was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01-BD-8166. His friend Azahar Hussain was the pillion rider. Another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AP-7861 was proceeding in the same direction and at the place of occurrence, this vehicle hit the aforesaid motorcycle. Both Nur Islam Ali and Azahar Hussain had instant death. Therefore, the claim application has been filed under Section 166 of the MV Act.

4. The owner and the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AP-7861 did not contest the claim case.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company contested the claim case by filing the written statement.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed two issues and they are as follows:

(i) Whether the deceased late Azahar Hussain died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 06.03.2015 involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AP-7861(Maruti Zen) and AS-01-

Page No.# 3/4

BD-8166 (motorcycle) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No. AS- 01-AP-7861 (Maruti Zen) ?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

7. The appellants examined two witnesses. The Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses.

8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9,66,800/- as compensation.

9. The appeal has been filed on two grounds. The first one is that as per the Income Tax Return (Ext. 3),the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.16,099/- but the Tribunal arbitrarily held the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month. The other ground is that the Tribunal arbitrarily deducted 50% of the annual income instead of one-third of the said income.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels for both the sides.

11. The deceased was a businessman by profession and he was reportedly earning Rs.18,000/- per month at the time of the accident and the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2013-2014 was exhibited. No other income tax returns of the previous assessment years were filed.

12. Income Tax Return cannot be treated as a public document and the Tribunal or the court cannot take judicial notice of the same. Income Tax Return must be proved like any other document. Until the income tax return is not proved, such a document cannot be accepted by any court or tribunal as a proof of income.

13. In the case in hand, the income tax document for the assessment year 2013- 2014 was not proved and, therefore, the tribunal did not accept the document to be a proof of income.

Page No.# 4/4

14. The deceased was a bachelor and the learned trial court has correctly deducted 50% of the total annual income on account of personal expenses.

15. Now, this court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding.

16. Under the said premised reasons, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and therefore stands dismissed.

17. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant