R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 29.09.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the Appellants have approached this Court.
(2.) MR . B.C. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has raised a single contention before this Court namely the learned Tribunal has erred in not relying upon the income tax return submitted by the claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased, Dharma Chand Jain. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has vehemently contended that although the name of Dharma Chand Jain's father was C.L. Jain, inadvertently in all the documents his father's name has been as shown L.C. Jain. This inadvertence cropped up because the learned Counsel for the Appellants, before the Tribunal, did not notice difference between L.C. Jain and C.L. Jain. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has failed to give any cogent reasons for disbelieving the income tax return. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the impugned award.
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has clearly noticed the fact that in Exhibit -53A, Rojnamacha Report No. 17, Dharma Chand Jain's father name has been shown as L.C. Jain and the age has been shown as 66 years. Moreover, in Exhibit - 52A, Rojnamacha Report No. 26, again the name of Dharma Chand Jain's father has been shown as L.C. Jain. Even in the Post -Mortem wherein Dharma Chand Jain's body was identified by his nephew, Naveen Jain, even therein Dharma Chand Jain's father name has been shown as L.C. Jain. The income tax return submitted by the claimants, however, shows the name of Dharma Chand Jain's father as Chagan Lal Jain. Thus, the learned Tribunal is certainly justified in concluding that there is a variation in the name of Dharma Chand Jain's father. For, Chagan Lal Jain would not ever abbreviated as L.C. Jain. But in fact would be C.L. Jain. Moreover, the learned Judge has clearly noticed that whereas in all the documents the age of the deceased has been shown as 66 years, according to the income tax return his age would be only 59 years. There is, indeed, a vast difference between 59 years and 66 years. Furthermore, he has noticed the fact that Exhibit -52, the income tax return, is the one which was submitted after the alleged accident. He has further noticed the differences in the signatures of the deceased. Hence, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the veracity of the income tax return. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that no valid reasons have been given by the learned Tribunal, is baseless.;