M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises the question regarding the computation of damages consequent to the death of an agriculturist under Section 110b. Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) THE deceased died in an accident on 27-2-1980 leaving behind him his wife, four children and mother. At the time of his death he was aged 38 years. He was an agriculturist and it is in evidence that he was having 8 acres of land and about ten cattle. Though it is argued that no documentary evidence is filed in this behalf, in view of the absence of any cross-examiantion on this question, I am of the view that the evidence regarding his owning 8 acres of land and ten cattle tntitle is to be accepted. The evidence also is that income from these properties was Rs. 600. 00p. m. The total claim in the petition is only for a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 with interest and the lower tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs. 7,500. 00 on the peculiar reasoning, namely, that the death was not a loss to the family pecuniarily, inasmuch as the claimants have received intact, the property left behind by the deceased and that nominal compensation would meet the ends of justice. The case is yet another example where the claimants lawyer has claimed far less than what the claimants are entitled to for lack of proper guidance while drawing up the claim petition. The award made by the tribunal is euqlly unsatisfactory and is yet another example of ad hoc-ism that has entered the decision making process in motor accident claims.

( 3 ) THE question of estimating damages on the death of an agficulturist owning agricultural land and cattle, has engaged the attention of various High Courts in our country from time to time. It is necessary to refer to these cases.

( 4 ) THE Allahabad High Court in Bishamber Sahai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1975 Acc CJ 154 considered the case of an agriculturist aged 33 years. The evidence was that the family income suffered by Rs. 12,000. 00 a year due to loss of his services and the claim was for Rs. 35,000. 00 the accident having occured some time before 1964. While assessing the loss to the dependants Asthana and C. S. P. Singh, JJ. observed :"it has come in evidence that the faimly had separated and Pannalal, deceased was supervising his own farm and looking after his other immovable properties. Mrs. Urmila being a widow, cannot possibly be expected to look after these propertiest of her own and carry on the work of farmings This being so, she will have to engage some one to look after her properties and supervise the work of the farm. Considering the; extent of the properties and the prevalent wages, we think that she would incur expenses of at least Rs. 200. 00 p. m. that is Rs. 2,400. 00 per year. "and awarded Rs. 32,000. 00 after holding that there was contributory negligence.

( 5 ) THE Rajasthan High Court, in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) P. Ltd. v. Dewalal, 1977 Acc CJ 150 : (AIR 1977 Raj 121) was considering the case of an agriculturist who had also some business. He was aged 30 years at his death which occured in 1966. He was a share-holder in the parental firm and getting Rs. 180. 00 p. m. therefrom on an average. He was also looking after the agriculture. Though the claimants stated that the expense of engaging a farm servant in the place would be Rs. 250. 00 p. m. the tribunal estimated the same at Rs. 70. 00 p. m. The tribunal awarded, in all, a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 the High Court reduced the same to Rs. 20,000. 00 on the ground that, while fixing the monthly contribution, the tribunal had failed to deduct the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself. The Court observed that the mere fact that the depedents have been admitted to the benefits of the family business will not go to show that the children and the widow and parents have suffered no loss on account of the death of the deceased. A. P. Sen, J. and M. L. Jain, J. (as they then were) observed (at p. 127) :"we are also unable to say how the finding of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document