( 1 ) A question of some importance as to how in cases of fatal accidents of agriculturists compensation is to be computed arises in this appeal in the following circumstances:

( 2 ) ON 28-4-1979 there was an accident between a truck bearing no. G. T. S. 7023 and a tractor bearing No. G. T. H. 9119. The tractor was proceeding on the road to Browsed starting from village Bodal and lift was given to deceased Hirabhai Motibhai Patel about whose death the claim application concerned in this appeal was filed. He was to go upto Da- vol village. The case was that in the tractor there were various persons and it was being driven by Monsoons Mangalbhai Parmar original oppo- nent no. 4 (present respondent no. 4 ). It is the case that the truck in question driven by opponent no. 1 Chitrabhai Chakabhai Makwana (pre- sent respondent no. 1) belonging to opponent no. 2 Abdulbhai Bilalbhai Lakhani (present respondent no. 2) and insured with opponent no. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (present respondent no. 3) came in excessive speed. It was being driven rashly and negligently and on the wrong side of the road. It dashed with the tractor. The truck went into the wrong side and fell into a ditch while the tractor and the trailer were damaged. Hirabhai died due to this accident.

( 3 ) IN this claim petition appellant Dahiben widow of Hirabbai Motibhai Patel claimed compensation of Rs. 80 0 for the death of her husband. Her case was that her husband was cultivating the lands and was growing tobacco wheat and millets and was earning Rs. 1 0 per month. It was her case that the deceased was 51 years of age. He was healthy and was Maintaining her also now she has to engage a person and pay him Rs. 3 0 per annum to look after the agricultural work and that her income is decreased. She claimed an amount of Rs. 80 0 with a contention that opponents nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay that amount on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of oppo- nent no. 1. and in the alternative claim was made against opponents- respondents nos. 4 5 6 and 7.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record awarded only Rs. 18 0 as compensation considering the loss of income due to the death of deceased Hirabhai to the tune of Rs. 150. 00 per month i. e. Rs. 1 800 per annum and applied the multiplier of 10 and thus awarded Rs. 18000. 00 and to this amount the Tribunal added conventional figure of Rs. 5 0 and thus totally awarded Rs. 23 0 Being aggrieved by the said award original claimant Bai Dahi has come in appeal with a request that full amount of Rs. 80 0 should have been awarded and therefore claim of additional amount of Rs. 57 0 has been made. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 5 ) IT is true that so far as the evidence is concerned no satisfa- ctory evidence is led to assist the Tribunal to come to a particular exact figure so far as the income derived from the land by the deceased is concerned. Not only that but when Bai Dahi deposed before the Tri- bunal that her husband used to get tobacco worth Rs. 20 0 to Rs. 25 0 per annum and other crops worth Rs. 5 0 annum and the tobacco was sold at the rate of Rs. 117 per monad and there was 125 mounds of tobacco during cross-examination also it is not brought out as to what would be the expenses for cultivating this much quantity of tobacco including water seeds labour charges etc. So there is no specific evidence led to facilitate the Tribunal to come to a correct figure. But it also does not mean as the Tribunal rightly considered that Court should not endeavor to find out the proper figure of compensation which would be available to the applicant.

( 6 ) NOW it does not require to be stressed that merely because land has remained and from that cultivation could be available it cannot be said that because the corpus has remained with Bai Dahi there should be reduction in the amount that would be awarded to her. It is of course true that if a person who is receiving a pay for th