Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
D. Vinoda and Others – Appellants
Versus
B. Basava Raju and Others – Respondents
Decided On : 14-03-1988
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-B - DEATH OF AN AGRICULTURIST - COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES - LOSS TO DEPENDENCY - VALUE OF SUPERVISORY SERVICES - DEDUCTIONS - ACTUARIAL MULTIPLIER - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE - PAIN AND SUFFERING - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - PAYMENT OF PERIODICAL INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an agriculturist aged 38, died in an accident leaving behind his wife, four children, and mother. He owned 8 acres of land and ten cattle, with an income of Rs 600/- p.m. The lower tribunal awarded only Rs. 7,500/- as compensation, reasoning that the death was not a pecuniary loss to the family since they inherited the deceased's property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lower tribunal's reasoning was flawed and that the value of the deceased's supervisory services as an owner-manager had to be estimated. The court also held that it was not permissible to say that no amount need be awarded towards the loss to the dependency merely because the corpus of the agricultural land was left intact for the dependants.
Issues: 1. How to compute damages for the death of an agriculturist under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. What is the value of the supervisory services of an owner-manager? 3. Can the value of the property inherited by the dependants be deducted from the compensation awarded? 4. How to apportion the compensation among the dependants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. 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, AIR 1988 AP 99. 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 and loss of expectation of life as decided in Y. Varalakshmi and Others vs. M. Nageswara Rao and Others, (1988) 1 ALT 337. 2. 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 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 treated as a total or partial equivalent of the loss to the dependancy inasmuch as the said acceleration has to be set off against the loss of saving of the deceased to the family. At the other extreme, it is equally not permissible to capitalise the income from the land by a number of years' purchase.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation, apportioned among the dependants. The court also directed that periodical interest on fixed deposits be remitted directly to the bank accounts of the parties to avoid hardship.
JUDGMENT :
JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
1. This appeal raises the question regarding the computation of damages consequent to the death of an 'agriculturist' u/s 110-B, 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-examination on this question, I am of the view that the evidence regarding his owning 8 acres of land and ten cattle is to be accepted. The evidence also is that income from these properties was Rs 600/- p.m. The total claim in the petition is only for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest and the lower tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs. 7,500/- 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 equally unsatisfactory and is yet another example of ad hocism that has entered the decision making process in motor accident claims.
3. The question of estimating damages on the death of an agriculturist' 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1975 ACJ 154 (All) considered the case of an agriculturist aged 33 years. The evidence was that the family income suffered by Rs. 12,000/-a year due to loss of his services and the claim was for Rs. 35,000/-, the accident having occurred 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 family 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 properties of her own and carry on the work of farming. 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/- p.m. that is 2,400/- per year.
and awarded Rs. 32,000/- after holding that there was contributory negligence.
5. The Rajasthan High Court, in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) P. Ltd. vs. Dewalal 1977 ACJ 158 was considering the case of an agriculturist who had also some business. He was aged 30 years at his death which occurred in 1966. He was a share-holder in the parental firm and getting Rs. 180/- 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/- p m., the tribunal estimated the same at Rs. 70/- p.m The Tribunal awarded, in all, a sum of Rs 30,000/- but the High Court reduced the same to Rs. 20,000/- 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 dependents 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. & M.L. Jain, J. (as they then were) observed:
We are also unable to say how the finding of the learned Tribunal can be disturbed in respect of loss of supervising services which the agricultural la
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
