THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 901 OF 2007 Date of order: 20.7.2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant and D. Durga Satyanarayana and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 901 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 6.10.2006 passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in OP No. 590 of 2005. The claimants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the death of husband of first claimant on 10.12.2004 in a motor accident when the motor cycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, collided with the offending truck bearing No. AP-20-T- 6915. It is alleged that the said truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which the deceased died. The insurance company resisted the claim of the claimants. The Tribunal framed questions as to whether there was any rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle and what is the compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. So far as the first question is concerned, based upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the Tribunal found that P.W.2 was the person who was riding the motor cycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider and his evidence is relevant and it held that the accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. So far as the claim for compensation is concerned, apart from the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the income tax returns of the deceased were exhibited as Exs.A14 to A18 which covered the period from 2001-2002 to 2005- 2006. The said returns disclose that at the relevant point of time under Ex.A16 the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.90,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, therefore, had no difficulty in accepting the said income of the deceased as reflected in the tax returns and after deducting one third for his personal expenses, it awarded compensation by multiplying the remainder of income with a multiplier of ‘11’ keeping in view the age of the deceased as 52 years. The said award is questioned in this appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contends that the amounts of income reflected in the income tax returns mainly comprise of income from hand loans which the deceased was getting and therefore the income as assessed by the Tribunal is required to be reduced. The learned counsel also states that most of the legal heirs of the deceased are businessmen and earning substantial amounts and as such there is no loss of dependency on account of death of deceased. I have considered the submissions and so far as the first part of the submission is concerned, the income tax returns reflecting the assessment of income of the deceased is a very valid piece of evidence and the same cannot be ignored as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. The income tax returns are consistently for five years as per Exs.A14 to A18 and I am unable to see any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the said income tax returns. Further keeping in view the age of the deceased as 52 years, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is ‘11’ which is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [1]. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order in that regard does not require any modification. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that most of the legal representatives are well placed in life is no ground to deny or reduce the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. ‘Just’ compensation has been assessed and awarded by the Tribunal and there is no ground made out by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company warranting interference of the same. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 20.7.2010 KR [1] 2009 ACJ 1298