JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM No.2453-CII/2020

Since there is delay of 72 days in filing the appeal, aforesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Main Appeal.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,84,176/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 5.7.2019 passed in MACP 32/2018 under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimants are widow and two major sons of deceased Sukhbir Singh who was aged 59 years at the time of his death.

4. Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence on record held that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.11.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Mixture Truck bearing registration No. HR-46-C-0708 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3. The Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as Rs.8280/- per month as that of an unskilled labourer. It is submitted that the deceased was an agriculturist, and was also running a dairy farm from which sources he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was also working part time in water supply maintenance as Lineman from where he was getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month. It is submitted that despite appellants' having led cogent and convincing evidence in support of the said contentions, ld. Tribunal has still taken income of the deceased as only Rs.8280/- per month.

6. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that even nothing has been granted by way of parental consortium to appellants 2 and 3 who are children of the deceased.

7. It is submitted that rate of interest @ 6% per annum is also on the lower side.

8. No other argument has been raised.

9. Heard ld. Counsel.

10. As regards income of the deceased, it is established position in law that income from agriculture and dairy farm is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing compensation payable under the Act, as the agricultural land as well as dairy farm/milch cattle still remain with the claimants after the death of the deceased and therefore, income from the said source is still available to the claimants. In the present case, it has been admitted by the claimants that they are still maintaining the buffaloes and are deriving income from selling the milk. Even otherwise, perusal of the evidence brought on record by the claimants is insufficient to establish that deceased had income from dairy farming. Ld. Tribunal has however, awarded Rs.2000/- per month towards loss of supervision of agriculture land, which I will maintain.

11. As regards contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4000/- per month from his part time job as Lineman with the Water Supply Department, appellants had examined PW2 Satyawan Singh, Gram Secretary who testified that the deceased was working part time in Water Supply Maintenance. PW2 had also produced certificate dated 15.12.2017 (Ex.P2) issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Dubaldhan Kirman, wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4000 per month for doing part-time job as Lineman. However, PW2 has admitted that the said certificate Ex.P2 was prepared after the death of the deceased. PW2 produced no other cogent record to prove purported employment of the deceased with the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, I am in conc