TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se are that the claimants-respondents, filed a claim petition stating therein that on 23.10.2010 when Kamlesh Mewara was going on foot by the side of the road, he was hit by a Ford Ikon Car No. RJ06-CA-0186 being driven by the appellant No. 8 in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, Kamlesh Mewara died. By award dated 03.04.2013, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants-respondents, as stated above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the Income Tax Return (Ex.18) in order to assess the possible income of Kamlesh Mewara. For, according to the claimants-respondents, Mr. Kamlesh Mewara was en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s merely licensed for possession and use of explosive. Thus, he could not have shown the fact that he was engaged in illegally selling the explosive and making his money. It is for this reason that he does not reveal in his Income Tax Return the commodities which were being sold by him. 6. Fourthly, as far as the tractor boring business is concerned, again Pushpa (A.W.1) admits in her cross-examination that she does not know as to how much her husband was earning from the said business in Maharashtra. Therefore, the Income Tax Return filed by Kamlesh Mewara does not substantiate the pleas raised by the claimants. 7. Fifthly, even in the passbook submitted by the claimants there is an entry of Rs. 2,50,000/-. However, there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the benefit of prospect of increase in salary in future. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 11. Undoubtedly, a proceeding before the Tribunal is in the nature of a summary proceeding where while assessing the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal is basically concerned with the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not required to adjudicate upon the legality and veracity of an Income Tax Return. Even then in the present case, the learned Tribunal had written a letter to the Additional Income Tax Commissioner, Range-II, Ajmer Ward inquiring whether Kamlesh Mewara has actually filed the Income Tax Return on 30.7.2010 or not? By letter dated 18.2.2013, the Additional C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried out by him in Maharashtra, a place too far from Ajmer for her to worry about, it would not dilute her case that her husband was a businessman, that he had certain income and that it is he who was the bread earner in the family upon whom the claimants were financially dependent. 13. Moreover, the Tribunal could not have entered into the issue as to what commodity was being sold by Kamlesh Mewara in order to earn his income. Even if he was illegally selling the explosives, although there is no evidence to this effect adduced by the insurance company, even if for the sake of argument it is taken that he was engaged in an illegal transaction, even then the appellants cannot deny the fact that the deceased was earning an income. The to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit of future prospect of increase in income except those who are self-employed or are daily-rated workers. But even this observation made in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has now been dissented by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors.(supra). In the case of Rajesh & Ors.(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its opinion that since no reason was given by the court in carving out an exceptional class of persons, the claimants cannot be denied the benefit of prospect of future increase in income merely because they fall within the exceptional class. 17. Although it is true that the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. (supra) and the case of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), prima facie, may appear to be contrary to each other, but ....