Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The appeal is on the issue of negligence and quantum by the Insurance Company for death in motor accident of male aged 45 years. The accident was a result of collision between the motor cycle which the deceased was driving and the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction. Although at the trial, it was stated that the deceased had contributed to the accident, the Court will rely on the fact that there were oral assertions of eye witnesses account that the insured driver was responsible for the accident and after assessing the negligence of the insured driver as established proceeded to determine the compensation. I will not make any intervention with the finding regarding the negligence of the insured driver and undertake an exercise fully for assessing whether the compensation granted accords with evidence.

2. The deceased was an agriculturist and was also a contractor with sugar factory for supply of sugarcane through vehicles. The Income tax deducted at source for the year prior to his death showed that Rs. 76, 762/- had been credited to his tax account by the sugar mill. This was on the sum paid for the sugar mill for the contract work at Rs.7, 64, 620/-. The Court reasoned that his own gross income was shown only as Rs. 1, 70, 262/- and since he was making a plea for refund of the entire tax deducted it only showed that his income was not in the taxable range. The Court, therefore,took the gross income as income for the year and proceeded also to make reckoning of the value of the labour and managerial skills for the agricultural land which he possessed. The Tribunal assessed that it would have cost not less than Rs. 3,000/- to manage the lands per month and took this to be economic loss suffered by the family if they had to carry with the agricultural portions. In the manner of reckoning, therefore, the Tribunal took the aggregate of the gross income from his business of contract of supply at Rs. 1, 70, 292/- and added a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as the value of his labour for his agricultural land and determine Rs. 2, 06, 292/- as the annual income.

3. I find that the Tribunal has adopted a very reasonable and sane approach to be taking only the gross income as shown as the income from business and not take the entire payments received by the deceased from sugar factory for which TDS was also deducted as the basis for computation. The issue of whether there should be any further increase, a prospect of future increase in salary has been a subject of wider controversy and many legal systems are still digging deep to find out what would be a fair approach. The decision in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 (9) SCC 54, has been engaging the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and what types of employment would clarify the prospect of increase has been referred to a larger Bench. The provisions for increase was nothing novel and we have judicial dispensations right from the mid 90s commencing from General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 (2) SCC 176. The Tribunal’s prospect of certain increase of the existing income in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 devised a formula that it shall be in the range of 50% for persons whose age was less than 40 and it should be 30% between the age of 40 to 50. However, judicial innovation came through consideration of 15% increase from even persons above the age of 50 in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 (9) SCC 54, and without much of the deliberations proposed taking note of the reality that the most productive years for the individual is just about 50 and the person’s prospect of increase in income need not peter out immediately after cro