Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. … vs Smt. Shyam Jethwani W/O Late Dr. Shri … on 23 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17298]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 693/2020
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional
Office, Jaipur, Having Its Regional Office At E-52, IInd Floor,
Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Having Its Office At Unit No. 704-
708, Signature Tower, District Shopping Centre, Lalkothi, Tonk Road
Jaipur-302015 Through Its Constituted Attorney (Insurance Company
Of Bus No. RJ-23-Pa-6967).
--Non-Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Shyam Jethwani W/o Late Dr. Shri Bihari Lal Jethwani,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o B-304, Anukampa Grandier, Sunder
Singh Bhandari Nagar, Swej Farm, Sodala, Jaipur (Wife Of
Deceased). (Since Deceased)
2. Dr. Neetu Bisht W/o Dr. Mayanak Bisht, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Bisht Hospiutal, Takna Road, Pithoragarh, Uttranchal
(Daughter Of Deceased)
3. Smt. Pooja Miglani W/o Shri Rishi Miglani, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 39, Girnar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Daughter
Of Deceased)
.......Claimants/Respondents
4. Charanjeet Singh Mahariya S/o Shri Mohanlal Mahariya, R/o
Dhani Deepala, Kasarda, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar
(Driver Of Bus No. RJ-23-Pa-6967).
5. Baldev Singh S/o Shri Suwalal, R/o Samota Ka Bas, Shahpura
Bawdi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan
(Registered Owner Of Bus No. RJ-23-Pa-6967)
–Non-Claimants–Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha with
Ms. Anjali Assat and
Mr. Amit Agrawal for
Mr. Virendra Agrawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur with
Mr. Shashank Sharma
Mr. Aashish Mittal
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bairwa
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
23/04/2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company
(for short ‘appellant’) under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2019, passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan,
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 02:49:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 08:13:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17298] (2 of 4) [CMA-693/2020]
Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.102/2015 (CIS
No.0607/2015), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-
respondent Nos.1 to 3 (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.
3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are
that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal
stating therein that on 29.10.2014, at around 9-9:30 AM, Dr. Biharilal
Jethwani (since deceased), along with Ravindra Nayak, was travelling in
Innova Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-UA-4870, being driven by
Ravindra Nayak. When they reached near village Thikariya, a bus
bearing registration No.RJ-23-PA-6967, being driven by respondent
No.4 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and
hit the car, resulting into death of Dr. Biharilal Jethwani.
4. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award, partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.20,31,370/-,
in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 7% from the date of
filing of the claim petition.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant
has preferred the present appeal solely on the ground that the learned
Tribunal, while awarding compensation towards loss of dependency,
relied upon the Income Tax Returns (for short ‘ITR’) of the deceased,
with which profit and loss accounts were not enclosed, to determine his
annual income. It is submitted that in the absence of profit and loss
accounts, the ITR of the deceased ought not to have been relied upon.
5.1 No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel on behalf
of the appellant.
6. From a bare perusal of the record and the impugned judgment
and award, it is revealed that the deceased was working as a doctor.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 02:49:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 08:13:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17298] (3 of 4) [CMA-693/2020]
The claimants submitted ITR of the deceased alongwith the computation
of income, for the assessment year (for short ‘AY’) 2012-2013 (Ex-113),
AY 2013-2014 (Ex-114) & AY 2014-2015 (Ex-115). While assessing the
annual income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal computed the
same at Rs.4,60,860/- after taking average of the income reflected in
ITR for the AY 2012-2013 & AY 2013-2014.
7. The issue as to whether the assessment of the income of the
deceased can be made on the basis of ITR is no longer res integra as
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager,
reported in 2025 ACJ 1126, has already propounded that ITR is a
legally admissible document on which the income assessment of the
deceased could be made. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is reproduced below:-
“The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible document
on which the income assessment of the deceased could be
made. This Court in Malarvizhi v United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 affirmed that
the determination of income must proceed on the basis of
Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory
document. In S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182, we
opined:
’11. …It is no longer res integra that Income
Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the
income of a deceased, reference whereof can be
made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 [Para
17]; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Para 7], and K
Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1338].’ (emphasis supplied)”
8. In the instant case, the claimants not only produced the ITR of
the deceased but also examined Prahlad Gupta (AW-3), a Chartered
Accountant, who duly proved the said ITR and stated that the same had
been certified by him after obtaining their copies from the website of
Income Tax Department and verifying them.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 02:49:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 08:13:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17298] (4 of 4) [CMA-693/2020]
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in determining the annual income
of the deceased on the basis of ITR so produced by the claimants.
10. With aforesaid discussion, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed.
11. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
12. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13. No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
TN/66
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 02:49:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 08:13:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
