A post-death income-tax return may establish income when corroborated by contemporaneous evidence.

On 26 June 2010, a water tanker bearing registration No. MH-34A-2771, allegedly parked negligently on an uphill slope near North Point Check Post, Sahara City, Tal Mulshi, rolled over the deceased, Shiv Shankar Kapoor, causing his death.

The deceased was 28 years old and was stated to be self-employed as a petty contractor.

His widow filed a motor accident compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj.

The Tribunal held the tanker driver negligent and awarded a net compensation of ₹9,38,000, after adjusting ₹50,000 paid as interim compensation, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim.

The insurer appealed, disputing negligence and challenging the Tribunal’s reliance on an income-tax return filed after the deceased’s death.

The claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

The delay of 169 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver of the water tanker bearing registration No. MH-34A-2771, notwithstanding the submission of a final report in the criminal case?

Whether the Tribunal applied an incorrect method in assessing the deceased’s income, multiplier, future prospects and total compensation, and whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable?

In motor accident claims, negligence is determined independently by the Claims Tribunal on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities; a police report or final report in a criminal investigation is relevant material but is not conclusive proof of the absence of negligence, as held in Reena v. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 INSC 889.

An income-tax return is relevant evidence of income, but a return filed after the deceased’s death requires scrutiny in light of surrounding circumstances and corroborative material; it need not be rejected if supported by independent evidence, as held in Rashmirekha Tripathy v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 661.

The multiplier must correspond to the age of the deceased under Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

For a self-employed deceased aged below 40 years, 40% is added towards future prospects under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Conventional compensation for filial consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is payable in accordance with Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

The Court found the insurer’s reliance on the criminal final report insufficient to displace the evidence in the claim proceedings.

Two eyewitnesses testified that the tanker had been negligently parked on the slope and rolled over the deceased; their evidence remained unimpaired in cross-examination and was corroborated by the criminal detail report, post-mortem report, death certificate and motor vehicle inspection report.

Accordingly, negligence was established on a balance of probabilities.

On quantum, although the income-tax return was filed after the death, it was supported by a contemporaneous TDS certificate for the financial year immediately preceding the accident, oral evidence that the deceased earned ₹13,000–₹14,000 per month, and evidence that 10–15 persons worked under his supervision.

In the absence of contrary evidence, the annual income of ₹1,52,000 adopted by the Tribunal was not considered exaggerated.

However, the Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 13 despite the deceased being 28 years old; the correct multiplier was 17.

The Court therefore added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-half for personal expenses because the deceased was a bachelor, and calculated loss of dependency at ₹18,08,800.

It further awarded ₹40,000 for filial consortium, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses and ₹15,000 for loss of estate.

It further held that the Tribunal’s award was not just and reasonable because the multiplier and future prospects had been incorrectly assessed, while upholding the deceased’s annual income at ₹1,52,000.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹18,78,800, rounded off to ₹18,80,000, subject to adjustment of the ₹50,000 interim compensation and any statutory amount already paid or deposited.

The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, the claimant’s cross-objection was allowed, and the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the claimant could withdraw it through her bank account.

No order as to costs was made.