( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the order and decree in O. P. No. 594 of 1994 passed by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Kurnool. The petitioners in the o. P. have filed appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

( 2 ) SINCE the scope of this appeal is a limited one, viz. , whether the compensation granted by the-Claims Tribunal calls for enhancement or not, it is redundant to narrate the factual aspects, which are not in dispute.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the Tribunal erred in fixing the loss of dependency of the appellants due to the death of the deceased at a low rate. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency/pecuniary damages on the basis that Rs. 500 to Rs. 600 per month towards supervisory charges is the only loss to the appellants. On that basis, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000 towards loss of dependency to the family, and another sum of Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as on the date of his death in the accident the deceased was owning Ac. 16 and getting Rs. 60,000 to rs. 70,000 per year from that land and so the appellants are entitled to more compensation than the one awarded by the Tribunal.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent insurance company, it is contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was owning Ac. 16 of land as on the date of his death in the accident. It is contended that at the time of his death in the accident, the deceased was owning Ac. 9. 56 cents of land only, as could be seen from Exh. A-6. He, therefore, contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for any enhancement in this appeal.

( 5 ) I have perused the evidence on record and the order under appeal. In this case, the determination of compensation is made on the ground that the death of the deceased can be substituted by engaging a farm- servant, to supervise the cultivation of the land. Fixing the monthly remuneration of the farm-servant as Rs. 500, the Tribunal has arrived at the pecuniary damages/loss of dependency as Rs. 90,000 and awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium, the tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 95,000.

( 6 ) THE deceased was an agriculturist. The process adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the pecuniary damages/loss of dependency is not correct, more so, in a claim for compensation of this nature.

( 7 ) AS long back as in 1988, a learned single Judge of this court in D. Vinoda v. Baswa Raju, 1988 ACJ 1072 (AP), while considering the claim for grant of compensation in case of death of an agriculturist in a motor vehicle accident, has categorically held:"in the case of death of an agriculturist owning agricultural land, the value of the supervisory services of the deceased have to be first estimated. This will not be merely equivalent to the value of the services of a farm-servant or a manager of the property employed for that purpose. It will be more than that because an owner-manager takes extra care in increasing the income year by year and also in increasing the value of the property. After thus estimating the special value of the supervisory services of an owner-manager , a deduction is to be made in respect of the money the deceased would have spent for himself out of such sum and then the annual contribution to the family is to be arrived at. Then an actuarial multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased has to be applied. To the said sum may be added such sums towards loss of consortium and compensation for loss of expectation of life and for pain and suffering. It is not permissible to say that no amount need be awarded towards the loss to the dependency merely because the corpus of the agricultural l