Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - I. Death of an agriculturist, challenge to quantum

1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company had the benefit of defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2009. The Insurance Company is aggrieved against the assessment of compensation of Rs.14,29,000/- for the death of an agriculturist, who was holding 12 acres of land. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month against the statement of the widow that her husband was earning Rs.40,000/- per month.

II. Setting the basics – where land is still available, whole income cannot be relevant

2. In the case of agriculturist, it must be remembered that the income from the land itself ought not to be the sole consideration for determining the loss arising out of the death. The attempt must be made to secure evidence of the value of the services of the deceased for managerial skills of the agricultural land. The Supreme Court said, while dealing with the issue of assessment of compensation for the death of an agriculturist in a motor accident, in State of Haryana Versus Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484: “The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is, however, a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered…” (para 8). Income from land does not come month-wise. Such evidence is artificial and hardly convincing. The attempt must be, therefore, to secure evidence which is credible. The evidence regarding agricultural income and the manner of determining the value of services could come through various ways. I would outline them, since this is a repeated theme and the Tribunals do not secure the best evidence. The parties do not adduce the nature of evidence that is necessary to help the Tribunal to determine appropriate compensation. The repeated exhortation of various Courts from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to High Courts have been to look for evidence of the value of loss of the managerial skills of the land in question. In Ponnumani @ Krishnan and another Versus V.A. Mohanan and others [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1512] : (2008) 4 SCC 717, the contention was that the injured claimant who was an agriculturist and who had 100% disability was having 5 acres of land. In the absence of convincing evidence, the Court declined to interfere with the mode of assessment of taking the income conventionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum. In V. Subbulaxmi and others Versus S.Laxmi [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2531] : (2008) 4 SCC 224, the Supreme Court accepted the evidence of income at Rs.12,500/- per month as coming from agricultural operations and as commission agent and stated in a resigned tone that there was a certain guesswork was inevitable, if there was no appropriate evidence. There have been invariably ad hoc approaches by taking Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- pm as the value of the services of an agriculturist in several other cases. For instance, in Gurdeep Kaur Versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 2 RCR 774, this court had assessed the value of managerial skills of deceased owning 7 acres of agricultural land at Rs.3000/- in relation to the death that took place in 1989. For an agricultural labourer, an assessment of income of Rs.1500/- was made in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Mantari (Widow), (P&H) (2007) 4 RCR (Civil) 648, 2008(2) PLR 175. In yet another case decided in the same year, the same court determined the compensation for death of an agricultural labourer at Rs.2,500/- per month in Karamjit Kaur and others Versus Kulbir Singh and others 2007 (1)RCR 426; 2007(1) PLR 769. In another judgment in Inderjit Kaur Versus B