Wednesday, 26 August 2026

Supreme Court Lays Down Law On Using ITRs (Income tax return)To Assess Victim's Income in Motor Accident Claims

 In the considered view of this Court, there can be no hard and fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important reference point when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. {Para 17}

18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R Midha, learned senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.


19. When it comes to self-employed / individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, 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. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location,

category etc.);

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the

business;

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain

businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are

profitable at scale/in the future);

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in

the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial

standing); and

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.

20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be taken into consideration.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27220 of 2024)

RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY AND ANR. Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS), SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 661
Print Page

Bombay HC: What would effect if prosecution fails to examine persons residing in vicinity of spot of offence?

 Admittedly, there were shops around the shop of PW-3 Vivek where the alleged incident had taken place. There was a road in front of his shop and there were two shops beyond the road. However, the prosecution has not examined a single independent witness in support of its case. Adverse inference in terms of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 therefore needs to be drawn against the prosecution. {Para 17}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2012

Decided On: 22.06.2021

Ravi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

Citation: 2021 (3) B Cr C 774,MANU/MH/1522/2021
Print Page

Bombay HC: What would effect if injured fails to disclose name of assailant to doctor who first treated him?

Importantly, when PW1 had the earliest opportunity to disclose the names to Dr. Manor Shet (PW4), who has first examined PW2, PW2 did not disclose the names of the accused to PW4 Dr. Shet. In fact, it has come on record that PW4 Dr. Shet made enquiry about the incident and the names of the assailants. Therefore, except the evidence of PW1, which is also vague and doubtful inasmuch as at the earliest opportunity, he did not disclose the name of Rakesh Modak, who, according to him, was driving the rickshaw from which the assailants came and assaulted him.

9. PW4 Dr. Sheth in his deposition had stated that he had enquired about the incident and the names of the assailants, however, he stated that nothing was disclosed to him.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2003

Decided On: 23.12.2021

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Hundraj Rupija and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.

Author: Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.

Citation: 2022 All M R (Cri.) 3347,MANU/MH/4290/2021

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence if there is variance in the oral as well as MLC certificates?

 As per the evidence of PW1, he was unconscious soon after the incident and he was taken to MGM Hospital, Aurangabad, however, the discharge summary card of the injured-PW1 does not disclose history of unconsciousness of the injured PW1. Therefore, it appears that there is variance in the oral as well as MLC certificates.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2023

Sikandar Baig Amin Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.

Author: Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Citation: 2023 All M R (Cri.) 1414, MANU/MH/1866/2023.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page