The appellant is an agriculturist owning about Acs. 10.00 of agricultural dry land cultivated with a bore well. He met with an accident when a tractor bearing No. AP05 T 5106 dashed against him. He sustained injuries as the tractor ran over both the thighs and left ankle, his right thigh was fractured, left foot was crushed as well as left ankle was fractured. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. After discharge from the hospital, he allegedly took treatment at Kalyanachakravarthi Nursing Horne at Proddatur, and he was in-patient for a period of two months in the said hospital. He filed M.V.O.P.No 284 of 2000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, claiming Rs.1,75,000/-. He alleged that as an agriculturist he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per annum, that he requires another Rs.50,000/for future treatment, that due to permanent disability, he is entitled for Rs. 1,25,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.35,000/- for transportation and Rs.15,000/- for general damages. O.P. was opposed by the insurer. During the enquiry, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. EX.A-2 is the wound certificate and EX.A-5 is disability certificate given by P.W.2. Considering the evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,500/- (Rs. 30,000/- towards future earnings and permanent disability, Rs.15,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.15,0001- for pain and suffering and Rs.7,500/- for loss of earnings for three to four months). In this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on D. Vinoda v. B. Baswa Raju and State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur submits that when an agriculturist is injured, in addition to loss of income, the Tribunal has to consider awarding damages towards loss of supervision charges. He also submits that the appellant suffered disability to an extent of 25% and learned Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

3. In D.Vinoda 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 ate 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 v. Mohd. Arif (1987 (2) AL T 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 attitude should be taken. The general practice of making automatic deductions for the value of property Inherited has fallen into desuetude. The value of the accelerated receipt of property cannot according to the Privy Council be