VANDANA BANSAL Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 4/1/2000 passed by Judge, M.A.C.T., Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim No. 1006 of 1998 (Vandana Bansal v. Krishan Gopal) by which the Tribunal awarded claim of Rs. 6,42,000 against which this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Narender Bansal, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 and son of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was travelling in car No. RJ 14-3C 186 which was driven by respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently. The respondent No. 4 was the registered owner of the said car and it was insured by the respondent No. 6, which collided with truck No. DL IG-A 1436 on 17.7.1998 which was driven by respondent No. 2 negligently. Narender Bansal died in the accident. Respondent No. 1 is the registered owner of the truck and it was insured by respondent No. 3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in ascertaining Rs. 60,000 per annum income of the deceased. This argument is devoid of force in the light of income tax returns submitted by deceased and proved the appellants. The return Exh. 16 for the assessment year 1996-97 has been submitted in April 1997 in which income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 49,540 and income tax return Exh. 17 for the assessment year 1997-98 has been submitted by the deceased on 13.1.1998 in which the deceased has shown his income as Rs. 58,817. Normally the assessee suppresses his income in the income tax return whereas the deceased has shown his in- come to be Rs. 58,817 for the assessment year 1997-98. In such circumstances it can very well be presumed that his income was Rs. 60,000 per annum at the time of his death. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 60,000 per annum.