Income Tax Returns serve as statutory proof of income for motor accident compensation and cannot be disregarded.

On July 1, 2017, Smt. Shakila B. Shetty, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, died from injuries sustained after being hit by a BMTC bus

Her husband and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, asserting the deceased earned Rs. 1,00,000/- per month running a tutorial

They produced Income Tax Returns (ITR) for four years (Ex. P11)

The Tribunal disregarded the ITRs, citing a lack of educational certificates and minor signature variations, and fixed a notional income of Rs. 9,000/- per month, awarding a total of Rs. 13,30,000/-

The appellants challenged this award seeking enhancement

Whether the learned Tribunal was right in disregarding the ITRs filed by the appellants/claimants to determine the income of the deceased?

To what additional compensation, if any, are the appellants/claimants entitled?

The Court applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, which established that ITRs are statutory documents and must be relied upon to determine annual income

It further applied Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Branch Manager, Sriram General Insurance, which held that for self-employed individuals, the average of the previous three years' ITRs should be taken as the reference point

For future prospects and conventional heads, it applied the standards set in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, including a 10% escalation on conventional heads every three years

The High Court found the Tribunal’s rejection of the ITRs legally unsustainable, noting that personal educational certificates are not a prerequisite for accepting statutory tax filings

Following the Rashmirekha Tripathy rule for self-employed persons, the Court calculated the average gross annual income from the three years of ITRs provided (Ex. P11) at Rs. 3,33,360/-, resulting in a monthly income of Rs. 27,780/-

Applying the deceased's age (41), the Court used a multiplier of 14, added 25% for future prospects, and deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses

Under non-pecuniary heads, the Court corrected the consortium award to include all three claimants (Rs. 40,000 each) and added a 10% escalation to loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium as per Pranay Sethi

The Respondent was directed to pay the amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition, excluding interest for a 217-day delay in filing the appeal

The Court held that ITRs must be treated as primary evidence for income even in the absence of secondary professional licenses