COURT OF JUDICATURE : DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS (0 N0.24 of 2007 1) Smt K Padmaja, W/o Late Shri !< Shriniva, aged 30 years 2) Ku. K Vinjto, 9 years 3) Ku. K Vindhya, 6 years (Both daughters of lote Shri K Shrinivas through their natural •guardian appeilant No,l - Smt K Padmqja) 4) Smt K Manga Raju. W/o Late Shri KS Raju, 67 years Ali resident of MI©2/351, HUDCO, Bhlld Nagar, PS Bhilai Nagar, Kot^aii, Tah; & bistt.DURB Versus 1) Jaspal @ Jas-pa! Singh S/o Sodhu Sinqh C/o Shri Krishna Transport, Transport Nogar, Raipur, Tatiband, Distt Raipur C6 — Driyer 2) Saranjit Singh 5/o Darshan Singh R/o Transport Naaar, Rdpur, Tatibond, Shri Krishna Transport, Trans-port Nagar, Raipur/ Tatibond, bistt.Raipur CG — O^ner 3) Urfited Indla Insurance Co. Ltd- Tlirough Branch AAana9er, Tara Complex, ©ERoad, Po^'er Hosue, Bhiiai, Tah & Distt,Durg, CG Shri Yashwant Tiwari, counsei for the appe!!ants, Nohe for the respondents, '(Possed on 15th Ma^h^2007) The foliowjng oral order of the Court by . J. This is an appea! filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act 1988 (henceforth "the Act'1) for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 25,09<2006, by Eieventh Additiona! Motor Acc'fdent Cbim Tribunai, (FTC), Durg (C6} (hsnceforth "the Tribunal") in ciaim case No.67/2005, whereby cornpensation of Rs.9J8,000/- has to the appellants. 2) Factua! matrix of. the jn brief is that, on 22<05.2004 i< Shrlnivas (since going to Raipur. on his motorcycie. On his way, he .met i¥i1+i an accident, which caused by respondent No.l, who driving the vehicie beGring registration Ho £6-04-6-3965 'm a rash and negligent manner. sustained fatal injurjes and succumbed to those. Consequently, a petition under Section 166 of the Act has fiied by the appeilants who are wife, and mother of for compensation against who are driver, and insurer of the offendin9 vehicie. Respondents No,l &. 2 remained ex-parte, respondent No,3 contested the ciaim< 3) Learned Tribuna! after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties^Gwdrded as : ! t (a) Amount of dependency (b) For funeral (c) For loss of consortium (d) For iove and affection (e) For mental agony Rs.8,96,000/- Rs.2,000/- fts.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/- 4) Heard iearned counsel for the appellants, Learned counsei contended that was a contrGctor. Incorne tax return "5ARAL" has been filed for the year 2001 - 02. beceased did not fi!e income tax returns for the subsequent years to bte receipt of TDS.' TDS certificates by Chhattisgarh State. Eiectricit/ Board have fited before the Tribunai^ for assessment of income of the deceased. Tribunai without proper appreciation of those documents incorrectiy the incoriie of the as Rs.84,000/- per year. Income up to 1 (one) iakh is exempted from income tax. 5) We have through the record and award. ASI the documents ExP/7 to P/16 to be T&S forms have in favour of M/S Padma Constructjon, Bhilai. A!l docuirients simpfy unveil that contractor bili paid after de.cjucting tax. There is. no lega! evidence to that excjusive proprietor of the firin/company. Set apart, a!i those documents indude expenditure incurred by the said firm in carryjng out the worR^ Those documents do not_show net profit, Therefore, those documents can not be rel'ied on for the incorne of the deceased. Non-fiiing of return by the deceased after 2001-02 constrains us to draw adverse inference against hiiri. Deceased was knowing the consequences.of non- filing of income tax return, if did not fi!e the same after year 2002-03; it he had no such income which rnay iead to file income tax return. In the year 2002-03 hirnseif his income in the "SARAL" form Rs.83420/s". Learned Tribunai accepted his annuai incorne Rs.84,000/-, reduced 1/3 towards his own '• and thereafter in yiew of his age, which more than 38 years at the time of accident according to his own dechratic-n, appiied jTiuJtJpiier of 16, and recorded ioss of dependency Rs,8,96,000/CT, The Tribuna! also awarded cornpensation towarcls consortjum/ agony, iove & affection, and funeral expenses. The Tribuna! did not err in aiiowing the compensation to the ciaimants. 6) We are of the considered opinion that there is no i!!ega!it/ or infirmi^ in the factual flndings recorded by the Tribunai which snay cai! for interference by this Court in its appeliate Jurisdictian. The appea! is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge