Unverified ITRs and salary certificates cannot be the basis for income assessment in motor accident claims.

The Appellant/Insurance Company challenged an Award dated 13th December 2018 passed by MACT, East District, Karkardooma Courts

The Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs. 32,34,000/- with 9% interest to the claimants following an accident on 1st November 2015 involving the deceased, Rakesh Kumar Walia

The Tribunal’s assessment was based on a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- derived from Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16

The Insurance Company challenged the authenticity of these ITRs, producing a communication from the Income Tax Officer stating that no return for AY 2014-15 had been filed for the deceased's PAN

While a salary certificate of Rs. 17,300/- was part of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR), the claimants declined to summon the Income Tax Officer to prove the ITRs, opting to argue on existing records

1. Whether the ITRs submitted by the claimants could be relied upon to determine the benchmark income of the deceased

2. Whether the salary certificate in the DAR or minimum wages for a skilled worker should serve as the basis for compensation in the absence of proved income

The Court applied the principle from LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, which mandates that the person producing a document must prove it according to law, as mere admission of a document does not prove the truth of its contents

It also followed Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, holding that in the absence of documentary evidence, courts must use "intelligent guesswork" to assess income that is not "totally detached from reality," rather than defaulting strictly to the lowest tier of minimum wages

The Court applied the compensation standards for future prospects and consortium established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.

The Court found the ITRs (Ex. PW-1/5 & PW-1/6) to be unreliable and likely forged, given the Income Tax Department’s verification that no returns existed for the relevant period

Since the claimants refused to prove the documents through an Income Tax Officer, the Court discarded the Tribunal's reliance on a Rs. 20,000/- monthly income

Regarding the salary certificate of Rs. 17,300/-, the Court noted that while DAR contents are generally presumed correct (Dimple v. Afasar Ali), the employer was never examined, and the deceased’s occupation was vaguely recorded as a "private job"

Balancing the lack of formal proof with the oral evidence and DAR materials, the Court performed a "guesswork" assessment per Chandra, determining a reasonable notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which was higher than minimum wages (Rs. 11,154/-) but lower than the unverified salary certificate

The Court recalculated the total compensation to Rs. 26,30,000/- (reducing the original award by Rs. 5,13,705/-) and ordered the excess deposited amount to be refunded to the Insurance Company and the balance to be disbursed to the claimants at 9% interest