NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 7,63,000/- for disability to the extent of 76. 51% suffered by him.

(2.) MISS Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law by taking the entire annual income of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 43600/- as the basis for calculation of the compensation. It was argued that a sum of Rs. 25600/- out of that amount was salaried income of the respondent and another sum of Rs. 18000/- was the income from agriculture land as shown in the return of the income tax. It was argued that the claimant-respondent Mohanlal who was examined as AW 2 before the Tribunal has stated in his statement that he used to work with the private Firm M/s. Rameshwar Lal Mahendra Kumar Agrawal from 9. 00 a. m. in the morning till 6. 00 p. m. in the evening. Besides that, he and his wife were also working on their agriculture land of three and a half bigha and also had income from such land and additionally, from sale of the milk of buffaloes. Learned counsel submitted that even after amputation of the leg of respondent from below of the knee, the respondent would still have the income of the agriculture land and when it has come on record the respondent was working from 9. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 p. m. with the private firm, obviously, he could not in fact physically work in agriculture land and given the kind of disability he has and in any case, he can still continue to supervise the cultivation of agriculture land with the help of his wife as before.

(3.) QUESTION to be examined therefore is whether the Tribunal was correct in considering his income from private service and also simultaneously taking into consideration the agricultural income of the appellant for making calculation of the quantum of compensation. The Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur (supra) observed that the "the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. " These observations would equally apply to the facts of the present case too.