Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Kamla Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:12034) on 4 March, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:12034]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 718/2025
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office
Rajsamand, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.) (Insurance Company)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Thikarwas Kalla, Tehsil Bheem, Dist.
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
2. Kishore Singh S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Thikarwas Kalla, Tehsil Bheem, Dist.
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
3. Virendra Singh S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Thikarwas Kalla, Tehsil Bheem, Dist.
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
4. Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Balveer Singh, R/o
Rajiyawas, Tehsil Jawaja, Dist. Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Driver
Of Vehicle No. Rj-27-Cd-8381)
5. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Mahesh Ji, R/o Flat No. 401,
Saral Apartment, Akshya Complex, Keshav Nagar, Police
Station Sukher, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Owner Of
Vehicle No. Rj-27-Cd-8381)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.S. Chundawat.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/03/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case No.225/2023 (CIS
No.225/2023) whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded on to pass
[2025:RJ-JD:12034] (2 of 4) [CMA-718/2025]
an award for an amount of Rs.41,19,909/- in favour of the
claimants.
Vide the said judgment/award, the learned Tribunal also
awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition.
2. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised sole
ground before this Court that the learned Tribunal erred in
computing the income of the deceased on basis of the ITR filed for
the year 2020-2021 whereas the date of accident was
23.04.2023.
3. Counsel submits that no ITR qua the year just before the
accident was submitted and it were only the ITRs of the years
2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 which were got exhibited.
There was a variation in income as per the said ITRs and hence,
the learned Tribunal should have computed the income on basis of
the average income for last three years.
In support of his submission counsel relied upon the
Karnataka High Court judgment passed in Jayashree vs.
Mahaningappa & Ors.; Miscl. First Appeal No.202275/2023
(decided on 01.03.2024).
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
appearing in caveat submits that the learned Tribunal rightly
computed the income on basis of the last ITR. He submits that all
the ITRs clearly reflected a regular increase in the income of
deceased and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the income
of the deceased increased till the year 2023.
5. Counsel further submits that even the incentive receipts as
well as the sale credit notes for the year 2022 were placed on
[2025:RJ-JD:12034] (3 of 4) [CMA-718/2025]
record, however, the same were not considered by the learned
Tribunal. He submits that had the said receipts been considered it
could have been concluded that the income of the deceased was
far more than what had been computed by the learned Tribunal.
He therefore, submits that the award does not deserve any
interference. Counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment passed in Shashikala & Ors. vs. Gangalakshmamma
& Anr.; (2015) 9 SCC 150 to submit that the income as per the
last ITR filed by the deceased was rightly considered by the
learned Tribunal.
6. Heard the counsels and perused the material available on
record.
7. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly
relied upon the last ITR of the year 2020-21 as exhibited on
record which reflected the income of the deceased to be
Rs.4,90,278/-.
The Court is of the said opinion because of the fact that
although ITR for the years subsequent to the 2021 were not filed
but then, the evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased
for the subsequent years was definitely available on record.
8. A bare perusal of the vouchers pertaining to the credit
amount for transport incentive from March 2022 to September
2022 as placed on record and further, the sales credit amount for
the said time period reflects that the deceased availed minimum of
Rs.5,000/- per month as transport incentive for the year 2022
besides the sales credit amount. The sale credit amount from
March 2022 to September 2022 clearly reflect that the sales for
the said time period varied from Rs.1,00,000/- to more than
[2025:RJ-JD:12034] (4 of 4) [CMA-718/2025]
Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, if the sales credit per month went to that
extent, the deceased was definitely earning a handsome amount
which was certainly more than what has been computed by the
learned Tribunal.
9. In view of the above, the reliance placed by the learned
Tribunal on the ITR of the year 2020-21 cannot be faulted with.
10. So far as the judgment in Jayashree's case (supra) as
relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned,
there was a huge variation in the income of the deceased therein
and hence, the Court concluded to have an average of the income
as per the said ITRs.
However, the same is not the case here as firstly except for a
small variation in the year 2018-19, all the ITRs clearly reflect an
increase in income. Further, the documents as referred above also
reflect an increase in the income of the deceased.
11. In view of the above observations and analysis, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned
and the appeal is hence, dismissed.
12. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
244-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
