Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle.

^ c^f ^a^ ^"- .'r^ '?S- &;?" Scy'a ^f ^-'asa •<.;?••»».e &i*-?^-r;; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fd No. 'A12- Of 2011 APPELLANTS ^s^ ^y^ ^s^^ T1^^' 3. 4. RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Smt. Toshan Bai Sahu (Bhesle), aged about 35 years, W/o. Late Ramswarup Sahu (Bhesle) Smt, Tulsit Bai Sahu (Bhesle), aged about 58 years, W/o. Late Takram Sahu (Bhesle) Ku. Yamini Sahu (Bhesle), aged about 12 years, D/o. Late Ramswarup Sahu (Bhesle) Subham Sahu (Bhesle), aged about 14 years, S/o. Ramswarup Sahu (Bhesle) Appellant No. 3 & 4 are miner Presenting his case through his Natural Guardian Smt. Tpshan Bai Sahu (Appellant No. 1) All are resident off Gokul Chowk, Karan Nagar, Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhata Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Gajanand Prasad Sahu, aged about 34 years, S/o. Anand Ram Sahu, R/o. B.M.Y Charoda Basti, Adarsh Nagar Durg, Tahsil and . Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Minidor Auto bearing Vehicle No. C.G. 04/J.B./0906)

^3, Smt. Sandhya Gupta, aged about 47 years, W/o Late Pramod Kumar Gupta R/o. House No. 209 Block No. G. R.D.A. Colony Hirapur, Raipur,Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Minidor Auto bearing Vehicle No. C.G. 04/J.B./0906) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd. Registered and Head Officer G. Plaza, Airport Road Yervada Pune 411006, through Zonal Offlce Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Minidor Auto bearing VehicleNo. C.G. 04/J.B./0906) APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

;/ ;"', i r' Paae Wo. I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS IVI.A.(C)No. 412/2011 Smt. Toshan Bai Sahu and others Versus Gajanand Prasad Sahu and others Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri. J. Appearance:- - Mr I. Lakda, AdvoGate for the appellants. Mr, S.S.IiRa]pHt,;Ad»ocateforfhe.cespofldent No.3 ORDER (23.01.2015) 1. This is the appeal by the claimants, against the award dated 03.12.2010, passed'inClaim; Case No.104/2009, passed by the 7th Additional Motdr Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, wherein as;agai:nsf the claim of Rs.34,30,000/- made by the claimants,'an.awarcl:ofRs,4,20,000/-was passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2009, the deceased Ramswaroop was going on his bicycle at that time Minidor bearing NO.C.G.-04-JB-0906 driven by the respondent No.1, Gajanand Prasad Sahu in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, whereby he sustained severe injuries and subsequently he died. The vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No,2, Smt^gandhya Gupta,. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence lead by the appellants and has disbelieved the document Ex.P/25, P/26 & P/27, which are the income tax returns, showing the income of

Paae No. 2 deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the said documents were supplied under the Right to Information to the appellants and as such has presumptive value of correctness. She would further submit that by non-believing such documents, gross mistake has been committed by the learned Claims Tribunal, which leads to perversity in passing the award. The leamectnGout'isgtSappearjng pntiehalfofthe respondent No.3 svould sOBmifthat the Court below'Has.rightly disbelieved the document filed as income tax return. He would further submit thatthe documents filed as Ex.P/25, P/26 and P/27 did not bear the signature of the assessee and therefore, in absence of such signature, the incofie tSx return can not be accepted to be that ofthe deceased. :' 1 have gone ttirDughjthg dEicuments and the statement and taking into account the document Ex.P/25 appears to be the certified copy, signed by the Income Tax Officer, whereas, the documents Ex.P/26 and Ex.P/27 are the copies of the return pertains to the year 2009-10 and 2008-09. Taking into account the fact that the document Ex.P/25, P/26 and P/27 have not baen signed and it appears it needs the signature of the assessee as per Section 140 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, in my opinion since the Court adjudicated the case on compensation are bound and duty to award just compensation, therefore, 1 deem it proper to grant an opportunity to the appellants with libertiy to call ~the witness from the Income Tax