( 1 ) IN this appeal question of some importance of computing the compensation in case of the death of an agriculturist-cum-social worker arises.

( 2 ) THE appellants who are the heirs of deceased Govindbhai filed a claim petition being Motor Accidents Claims Applications no. 115 of 1978 before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal no. IV Ahmedabad claiming compensation of Rs. 50 0 The learned Tribunal however awarded only an amount of Rs. 8 600 and hence this appeal.

( 3 ) THIS evidence shows that the deceased was an agriculturist as well as a social worker. After his death though the agricultural lards have remained the question of reduction in income due to the non-avai- lability of supervising power of the deceased who was the owner cannot be ignored. Recently we have decided one appeal being First Appeal no. 1286 of 1980 in Dahiben v. Chitrabhai Chakabhai Makawana and Others on 31-8-1981 [23 (1) G. L. R. 498]. Therein while relying on the previous two decisions of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Malubai Menand 21 Gujarat Law Reporter 400; and an unreported deci- sion in First Appeal no. 37 of 1972 decided on 3-2-1975 by the Division Bench to which one of us (B. K. Mehta J.) was a party we have reitera- ted the enunciations made in those two decisions pertaining to the income from agriculture of a person who died in an accident and whose personal supervision and experience would not be available after his death. We have considered that no different approach or yardstick is to be adopted for assessing the compensation in case of fatal accidents to agriculturists on the supposed ground that the agriculture estate remains intact and is inherited by the heirs of the deceased. We also observed that there is no justifying basis for this view because even in cases of victims under the Fatal Accidents who may be non-cultivators there may be some proper- ties in the nature of investments savings etc. which may come in the hands of the heirs and representatives of the deceased as a result of his death and which were also available in the life-time of the victim. This would not however justify a Tribunal to take a different view in asse- ssment of damages on the first head under sec. 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act merely because agricultural land holdings remain intact and is avai- lable to the dependents. In such cases as observed by us in the aforesaid First Appeal no. 1286 of 1980 it will be necessary to evaluate as to what would be the additional liability of the dependents in procuring the equivalent services of that which were rendered by the deceased to find out how far the maintenance allowance is reduced and the extent to which the loss has ensued.

( 4 ) IN the instant case the deceased can well be said to be the owner-manager of the holding. The services of the owner-cum-manager cannot be put on the same par with that of an ordinary manager who has no stake in the property except to the extent of security of his services. The owner-manager is invariably interested not only in managing the property for the purposes of earning maximum income out of it but is equally interested in managing it in a prudent and far-sighted manner as the owner so that the valuation of the property appreciates every year. We therefore observed in the aforesaid first appeal that the Tribunal has to hear in mind the two-fold aspect namely (i) evaluation of the services of the victim as manager-owner and not as merely manager and (ii) right of the victim as manager-owner to spend some amount out of his earning for his necessities and convenience in discharge of his duties. We therefore considered that the earnings of an agriculturist who died in an accident should be made on the basis of the income that would be available to the family by the toil of the deceased as owner-cum-manager of the agricultural lands. This aspect has to be applied to the facts of the present case.

( 5 ) IT is true that out of