New Delhi: The Supreme Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines for assessing the annual income of a deceased person or claimant for determining compensation in motor accident claims, drawing a clear distinction between salaried employees and self-employed individuals to bring consistency to a field where different courts had followed divergent approaches.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal filed by the legal representatives the deceased, who died in a road accident. The appeal was preferred against a judgment of the Orissa High Court which had reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrampur. The deceased ran his own construction business, and the dispute centred on how his annual income ought to be computed from the Income Tax Returns on record.
The Tribunal had computed the deceased's income at Rs. 15,00,000 based solely on the ITR of the preceding assessment year and applied a multiplier of 16, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,27,00,064. The High Court, however, took the average of the previous two ITRs, arriving at an annual income of Rs. 13,33,226, applied a multiplier of 15, and reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,87,75,150. Aggrieved by the reduction, the claimants approached the Supreme Court, contending that both courts below had erred in their computation.
Noting the absence of uniformity across courts on this question, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. J.R. Midha, senior counsel, and Mr. Salil Paul as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. The amici pointed out that while some courts relied on the average of the last three years' ITRs and others on the most recent return alone, the ITR, though prima facie evidence of income, did not always reflect the true financial position of the deceased, particularly in businesses with fluctuating or seasonal income patterns.
Reiterating that the object of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to award “just and fair compensation” rather than an exact mathematical figure, the court relied on its recent decisions in V. Pathmavathi versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anant versus Pratap, both of which emphasised that determination of compensation involves estimation and cannot be reduced to a rigid formula.
Accepting the submissions of the amicus curiae, the court held that a bifurcation was necessary between salaried and self-employed claimants. On salaried individuals, the court held, “only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary”, noting that the financial impact of a promotion is often reflected only in that year's return.
For the self-employed, the court held that “the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business”, while accounting for factors such as the nature and location of the business, its growth pattern, the impact of the claimant's death on the business, and instances of negative income in the initial years of a venture.
The court further clarified that the date on which an ITR was filed would be a relevant consideration, particularly where returns showing inflated income were filed after the death or injury of the claimant, and that such returns could be relied upon only if adequately supported by other financial statements.
Applying these principles to the facts, the court noted that the deceased's two ITRs on record showed an income of Rs. 11,59,882 and Rs. 15,06,571 respectively, and that the High Court had averaged these figures without accounting for the nature of his construction business. Considering the nature of the business, the court fixed the deceased's annual income at Rs. 14,00,000 and, applying the framework laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi for future prospects, deductions and conventional heads, recomputed the total compensation payable at Rs. 1,97,81,505, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
The same bench applied these guidelines the same day in two companion appeals arising from Madhya Pradesh, enhancing compensation for the family of an insurance agent from Rs. 76,09,500 to Rs. 87,09,282 by averaging his income across three ITRs, and for the family of a grocery store owner from Rs. 38,40,850 to Rs. 60,79,550, after accounting for ITRs filed following the claimant's death.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court accordingly, and directed that the enhanced amount, along with interest, be remitted directly to the bank account of the claimant-appellants within four weeks.
Case Title: Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. versus The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
