First respondent in this appeal, aged 18 years statedly an agriculturist, was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter on 05.02.1996. Lorry bearing No.AAT 6887 dashed against the scooter. First respondent received serious injuries. He was admitted at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and again referred to Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences. Alleging that he incurred Rs.80,000/- for treatment, he filed O.P.No.385 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

2. O.P was opposed by the insurer denying the negligence on the part of the driver and on quantum of compensation. In view of the dispute, learned Tribunal framed two issues and enquiry was conducted. First respondent examined himself as P.W.1. Doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked besides Exs.C1 and C2. Ex.A4 is the bunch of 15 medical bills. Ex.A6 is insurance policy, and Ex.C1 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2 showing that first respondent suffered 50% disability. Considering the evidence on record learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Learned Tribunal then fixed age of the injured as 25 years and determined income as Rs.3,000/- per month. A total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded though it was determined as Rs.2,08,600/-.

3. In this appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was in error in determining the compensation that can be awarded to first respondent for the injuries sustained by him. He submits that when an agriculturist is a victim of the accident, the loss of income has to be calculated only based on supervision charges and he suggests that for the injuries sustained by the first respondent and also the disability suffered by him, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.1000/- as loss of supervision charges. He placed reliance on State of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur1.

5. In D.Vinoda v B.Baswa Raju2 this Court considered the question of computation of damages consequent to death of agriculturist. After referring to decisions of Allahabad, Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan and this Court, the two principles to be applied are stated as under.

(i) 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 from the Actuarial Multiplier table arrived at in Bhagwandas vs Mohd.Arif (1987 (2) ALT 137). To the said sum may be added such sums towards loss of consortium and compensation for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering as decided in Y.Varalakshmi v M.Nageswara Rao (1988 (1) ALT 337).

(ii) It is not possible to say that no amount need be awarded towards the loss to the dependency merely because the corpus of the agricultural land is left intact for the dependants. When in case of death of non-cultivators who have other properties the properties remain intact and still damages are awarded, there is no reason why on death of cultivators who have agricultural land, a negative attit