THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. DR. T. RAVI KUMAR

The learned counsel for the claimant appellant has confined his argument from two perspectives. One, that the criteria of determination of income, which has been recorded while recording the finding on issue No. 3, and while scrutinising the impact of paper No. 36(ga)/1 i.e. income tax return of the deceased, which was submitted before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as an evidence, has been misread by the Court because the same has not been appropriately determined as to be the basis or the ground that the Insurance Company has marked the document as to be ‘not admitted’.

Instead of venturing to argue the Appeal from Order on merits, the learned counsel for the appellants has straightway drawn the attention of this Court to the lower Court records and particularly, he has made reference to Paper No. 36(Ga/2) i.e. income tax return, which happens to be an order which has been passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, whereby the income of the deceased was shown to be Rs. 1,03,510/- for the assessment year 2008-09. In fact, if the endorsement which has been made is seen from the said document, rather its apparently seen that it bears no endorsement of any of the opposite parties of the claim petition of having not admitting the said document. Hence, the finding which has been recorded for not accepting the income tax return document i.e. paper No. 36(ga/2), as to be a document which has to be taken as to be basis for determining the compensation on the ground of alleged non endorsement by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, is per say, perverse and contrary to the records itself. In that eventuality, the determination of compensation made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal itself would be without any rational basis and apparently perverse to the document on record on the face of it.

The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted, that even otherwise the determination of interest, which has been made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal happens to be in contravention to the provisions contained

This Appeal, on that simplicitor ground is allowed. The impugned award dated 26.09.2011, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, to decide the MACP No. 446 of 2008, Smt. Saroj Devi and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, afresh, after providing ample of opportunity to the contesting parties and after the observation which has already been made, as to what impact the order passed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act would have for the purposes of quantification of the compensation to be paid to the claimants, as well as the aspect of the interest which would be payable.

For the aforesaid reason, the matter is remitted back to the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to decide the matter afresh on merits and the amount which has already remitted to the claimant in pursuance to the award, which has