Loss of agricultural income cannot be assumed without any evidence when the claimants, as legal heirs, can continue the agricultural activities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Challenging the award made in M.C.O.P.No.201 of 2018, dated 21.09.2022, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

2. The parties are referred to herein as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal has awarded the following compensation:

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal is as follows:

The deceased Baskar while travelling in a Scorpio car belonging to the first respondent, which is insured with the appellant herein, bearing Registration No. TN 45 BU 4757 from Chennai to Trichy, the driver of the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehcile proceeding infront of the said vehicle. As a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries and a crime is also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 45 years at the time of accident and he was doing real estate business and also from agricultural lands, he earns a sum of Rs.70,000/- p.m.. Hence the legal heirs filed claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2 crores.

5. The second respondent/Insurance company took a stand that unidentified vehicle has caused the accident besides the income and other aspects also disputed.

6. On the side of the Petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of the eye witnesses, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault and negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal, taking note of the income tax returns of the deceased, fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,71,730/-after deduicting 10% towards tax and that apart, the Tribunal also added another sum of Rs.1 lakhs as loss of income from the agricultural lands. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company mainly submitted that as far as the agricultural income is concerned, the property of the deceased will remain with the claimants,who are the legal heirs. Therefore, there will not be any loss of agricultural income. The claimants can continue the agricultural activities. Therefore, the Tribunal on assumption fixed such loss of income from agricultural lands, which is not valid in the eye of law.

9. Despite service of notice and name printed in the cause-list, none appears on behalf of the respondents, either in person or through counsel.

10. In the light of the above facts, the points that arose for consideration in this appeal is as follows:

1. Whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the agricultural income merely on guess work, particularly, when the income-tax returns of the deceased is filed?

11. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has accepted the income tax returns of the deceased and had taken the loss of income at Rs.2,71,730/- after deducting 10% towards income tax. It has also taken Rs.1 lakh as loss of agricultural income merely on the ground that if the properties are let out to the tenants, it would fetch Rs.1 lakh as lease amount. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has assumed such income on its own without any evidence whatsoever on record. Admittedly, the income tax