Sannala Bhaskar Reddy vs M. Sreenivasulu and Another

V.V.S. Rao, J.—The appellant is an agriculturist owning about 10 acres of agricultural dry land cultivated with a bore well. He met with an accident when a tractor bearing No. AP 05-T 5106 dashed against him. He sustained injuries as the tractor ran over both thighs and left ankle, his right thigh was fractured, left foot was crushed as well as left ankle was fractured. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. After discharge from the hospital, he allegedly took treatment at Kalyana-chakravarthi Nursing Home at Proddatur and he was inpatient for a period of two months in the said hospital. He filed M.V.O.P. No. 284 of 2000 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Second Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, claiming Rs. 1,75,000. He alleged that as an agriculturist he was earning Rs. 50,000 per annum, that he requires another Rs. 50,000 for future treatment, that due to permanent disability, he is entitled to Rs. 1,25,000 for permanent disability, Rs. 35,000 for transportation and Rs. 15,000 for general damages. O.P. was opposed by the insurer. During the inquiry the appellant examined himself as PW 1 and marked Exhs. A1 to A7. Exh. A2 is the wound certificate and Exh. A5 is disability certificate given by PW 2. Considering the evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,500 (Rs. 30,000 towards future earnings and permanent disability, Rs. 15,000 for medical bills, Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 7,500 for loss of earnings for three to four months). In this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

Learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on D. Vinoda v. B. Baswa Raju 1988 ACJ 1072 (AP) and State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, , submits that when an agriculturist is injured, in addition to loss of income, the Tribunal has to consider awarding damages towards loss of supervision charges. He also submits that the appellant suffered disability to an extent of 25 per cent and learned Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

In A Vinoda, 1988 ACJ 1072 (AP), this Court considered the question of computation of damages consequent to death of agriculturist. After referring to the decisions of Allahabad, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Gujarat and this Court, the two principles to be applied are stated as under:

(i) In the case of death of an agriculturist owning agricultural land, the value of the supervisory services of the deceased have to be first estimated. This will not be merely equivalent to the value of the services of a farm-servant or a manager of the property employed for that purpose. It will be more than that because an owner-manager takes extra care in increasing the income year by year and also in increasing the value of the property. After thus estimating the special value of the supervisory services of an owner-manager, a deduction is to be made in respect of the money the deceased would have spent for himself out of such sum and then the annual contribution to the family is to be arrived at. Then an actuarial multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased has to be applied from the actuarial multiplier Table arrived at in Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif, . To the said sum may be added such sums towards loss of consortium and compensation for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering as decided in Yerra Vara-lakshmi v. M. Nageswara Rao 1988 ACJ 354 (AP).

(ii) It is not possible to say that no amount need be awarded towards the loss to the dependency merely because the corpus of the agricultural land is left intact for the dependants. When in case of death of non-cultivators who have other properties the properties remain intact and still damages are awarded, there is no reason why on death of cultivators who have agricultural land, a negative attitude should be taken. The general practice of making automatic deductions for the value of property inherited has fallen into desuetude. The value of the accelerated receipt of the property cannot according to the Privy Council be treated as a total or partial equivalent of the loss to the dependency inasmuch as the said acceleration has to be set off against the loss of saving of the deceased to the family. At the other extreme, it is equally not permissible to capitalise the income from the land by a number of years'' purchase.

In State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, , the Supreme Court considered the appeal of the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal confirming the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Fatehabad. One Jagga Singh, who was an agriculturist, died in a motor accident involving the vehicle owned by Haryana Roadways. His wife and minor son filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (''the Act'', for brevity), claiming Rs. 10,00,000. M.A.C.T. awarded Rs. 6,50,000 for loss of pecuniary benefits taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500. The award was affirmed by the High Court. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,34,000 observing as under:

(8) It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal''s decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. 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 agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. The attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4,500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above about ''just compensation'' the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation...

(Emphasis supplied)

From the two authorities referred to hereinabove, it may be taken as well settled that normal rule about deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to the case where agricultural income is the source. If it is properly pleaded and proved about loss of the value of supervisory services of the deceased person, based on that, the loss of supervisory charges can be assessed by following the multiplier method. In case of death of an agriculturist, the award of loss of value of supervisory charges would itself be the loss of dependency in addition to the conventional amounts that may be awarded towards non-pecuniary damages.

Keeping the above principles in view, the controversy in this case needs to be considered. Though Exh. A5--disability certificate, was marked and its author was examined as PW 2, the same cannot have any evidentiary value in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh and Another, wherein it was held that on the basis of disability certificate issued two years after the accident by a civil surgeon, who did not treat the injured immediately after the accident, disability cannot be determined. Insofar as the agricultural holding of the appellant is concerned, Exh. A7 is on the record to show that he was having 10 acres of agricultural dry land. Exh. A2--wound certificate shows that he suffered crush injury on both the thighs and his ankle was fractured. Therefore, though much importance cannot be given to Exh. A5 and evidence of PW 2, disability may be taken as 25 per cent and value of supervisory charges can be taken as Rs. 1,000 per month. Applying the multiplier of 14.81 as per Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif, , loss of supervisory charges at 25 per cent disability would be Rs. 44,430. In addition to this, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 15,000 each towards medical expenses and pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 7,500 for loss of earnings for three to four months, totalling Rs. 81,930, which may be rounded of to Rs. 82,000. In the absence of any other clinching evidence with regard to supervisory charges, the appellant would not be entitled to any other claim.

Accordingly the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed awarding the amount as above with interest at 8 per cent per annum of enhanced amount from the date of petition in the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.