Jyotshna Rani Ray And Others vs S. Swadhin Kumar Patra And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 364 Ori

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   MACA No.614 of 2016
                Jyotshna Rani Ray and others              ....          Appellants
                                                         Mr. K.K. Jena, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                S. Swadhin Kumar Patra and another    ....       Respondents
                               Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2
            .


                            CORAM:
                            JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                            ORDER

10.01.2023 Order No.

07. 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellants-

claimants as well as Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-insurer.

2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 12.11.2015 of learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Talcher in M.A.C. Case No.39 of 2013, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6,80,000/- has been granted along with interest @7.5% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.03.05.2013 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 15.03.2013.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants-claimants that though the IT returns of the deceased for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 have been filed by the claimants, but the learned Tribunal did not take account of the same while assessing the income.

4. It is seen from the impugned judgment that no such IT returns allegedly filed on behalf of the claimants has been marked in

exhibits. Copies of the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as produced by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellants do not reveal filing of any IT returns on behalf of the claimants. P.W.2- the widow also does not say regarding filing of IT returns by the deceased at any point of time. No such IT returns has also been filed in the present appeal in support of the claim of the Appellants. As such no merit is seen in the contention of the Appellants regarding non-consideration of those IT returns filed on behalf of the claimants.

5. On the other hand, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has categorically observed in the impugned judgment that there is no documentary evidence produced to show the income of the deceased (Page 8) and in absence of reliable evidence towards income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal considered the same by guess work. Therefore, no flaw is seen in the approach of the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased and no merit is seen in the contention of the present Appellants.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

7. The copies of the depositions filed by Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellants in course of hearing are kept on record.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik