SBCMA NO.1618/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1618/2008. Smt.Suman Sharma and ors. Vs. Chanda Lal Meena and anr. Date of order : 24/04/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.P. Sharma for the appellants. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded in their claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even though in the income tax return which was produced before the Tribunal, the yearly income of the appellant was Rs.66,000/- and Rs.71,954/- p.a. and a sum of Rs.5954/- per month from other sources. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in computing this entire income from other sources as interest in saving account. Learned counsel submitted that had this income been taken into account, it would have made a substantial difference. Learned counsel submitted that appellant No.1 who is wife of the deceased, in her statement also asserted that the deceased had income from other sources than the SBCMA NO.1618/2008. 2 services. Learned Tribunal ought to have considered that fact into account and accordingly accepted income more than only Rs.66,000/- p.a. and on the head of loss of consortium also reasonable amount should have been awarded. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the award and also the income tax return which the learned counsel for the appellants has produced before the court, I find that salary of Rs.5954/- per month was mentioned by the deceased in his income tax return from computer hardware trade and service centre and on that basis, regular income of the deceased was accepted to be Rs.66,000/- p.a. though in the income tax return, on the head of other sources, the deceased had indicated Rs.532/- as interest in the saving account but the argument is made by the appellants with regard to the income from other sources which in the return has been indicated as "other estimated income from service work". Learned Tribunal did not accept that to be a regular source of income because it was indidated as estimated income from other service work. When the appellants produced income tax return, other oral witnesses produced on his behalf in their evidence, cannot be believed in substitution of the income tax return specially when, such income from other source has neither been specifically indicated with reference to the source nor can be considered as regular source of income. The amount of consortium in the sum of SBCMA NO.1618/2008. 3 Rs.5,000/- in totality of the facts and circumstances when award of Rs.6,99,000/- has been passed applying multiplier of 15 and taking monthly income of Rs.5,500/- per month, is not considered ground enough to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 5) The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submitted that amount has been invested for long period of time and should be released in their favour. The appellants shall be at liberty to make a suitable application before the Tribunal for change in the scheme of investment before the Tribunal, which is shall consider and decide in accordance with law. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil