SUGANBAI Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants, who are widow, sons and daughters of the deceased, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 21.12.2005, passed by the learned Second Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case No. 12 of 2005. By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,79,500 with interest to the claimants as compensation for the death of Nagulal. Learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the statements of Suganbai, AW 2, widow of the deceased, and submitted that at the time of death deceased was having 60 bighas of agricultural land in his name and from the said land he was earning Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month. In support of his contention he drew my attention to Exh. P36 and Exh. P37, copies of B/1 Kist Bandi Khatoni. He also drew my attention to Exh. P39, copy of Kist Bandi Khatoni in respect of Khata No. 435/432 and Exh. P40 in respect of Khata No. 116 by which 6.615 and 19.10 hectares of land has been jointly recorded in the names of deceased and his brothers and sisters.

(2.) The sole contention of Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, is that apart from the land mentioned in Exhs. P39 and P40 the deceased was having separate agricultural land which is more than 60 bighas and learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing his agricultural income only at Rs. 100 per day. In support of the said contention he drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Pachki Bai v. Mansha Ram, 2007 ACJ 1513, wherein in identical circumstances the assessment of agricultural income was made at Rs. 5,000 per month. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that under other conventional heads a sum of Rs. 9,500 has been awarded by the Tribunal, which is also on lower side. He lastly submitted that looking to the size of the family of the deceased and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, the deduction in respect of personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, as deducted by the Tribunal and prayed that the compensation be enhanced accordingly.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, drew my attention to the statement of Suganbai, AW 1, and submitted that as per her statement the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were also doing agricultural work along with deceased Nagulal and, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellants that only the deceased was doing the agricultural work is not correct and submitted that looking to the loss of supervision on the death of deceased the amount of Rs. 3,000 per month, as assessed by the Tribunal, is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.