THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 1713 and 2002 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) Since M.A.C.M.A.No.1713 of 2006 filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) and M.A.C.M.A.No.2002 of 2006 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arise out of the same award, dated 19-07-2005 in O.P.No.626 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of these Appeals, are as follows: The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The claimants 1 to 5 are the wife, minor son, minor daughter, father and mother of I. Devinder Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased”) respectively. The minors were being represented by their mother. Since mother of the deceased died, her L.Rs have come on record. The first respondent is the owner, second respondent is the driver and the third respondent is the Insurance Company of the lorry involved in the accident. Since the first respondent died, his legal representatives respondents 4 to 6 have been brought on record and since respondents 5 and 6 are minors, they are being represented by Respondent No.4. 3. After filing the Appeal, the second and third petitioners became majors and they are declared as majors by this Court through the orders, dated 13-07-2006 and 09-02-2007 in C.M.P.Nos.2716 of 2006 and 385 of 2007 respectively. 4. On 20-12-2000 at about 7-30 PM, while the deceased and his wife (first petitioner/PW-1) were proceeding to Karimanagar from Hyderabad in a Motiz car bearing No.AP 9AE 252 driven by the deceased and when they reached near Gagilapur Bus stage, a lorry bearing No.ATT 4764, being driver by the second respondent in a rash and negligence manner at high speed, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the car driven by the deceased, due to which the deceased and the first petitioner received fatal injuries. While they were being shifted to the Karimanagar hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2000 against the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. 5. The petitioners filed this claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that the deceased was aged 40 years and was doing business of contracts and running medical shop under the name and style of Sujatha Medical Hall at Karimanager. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his business. He had 10 acres of wet land, 9 acres of irrigated dry land and 6 acres of other dry land. He was raising paddy crop twice in every year in the wet lands and commercial crops like chilli, cotton, green gram and Jawar in the dry lands also using the other dry land for grazing cattle. He was getting an income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture after deducting expenses. He was an income tax assessee right from 1984. He had declared his income as Rs.1,70,000/- from business in the assessment year of his death. There was a gradual increase in the income of the deceased. He used to visit Vennampally village where his lands are situated and attend the agricultural work. After the death of the deceased, the agricultural work came to standstill as the first petitioner had never taken part in the agricultural operations. The petitioners were compelled to close the medical shop since there is nobody to look after the same. The petitioners 1 to 3 were totally depending on the earnings of the deceased. Petitioners 4 and 5 are depending on the service and assistance of the deceased in their old age. The deceased had good habits and used to contribute his total income for the benefit of his family. The petitioners 2 and 3 were deprived of their prospects of getting good education due to the sudden demise of the deceased. The deceased had purchased the car in the year 2000 for Rs.3,50,000/-. The car was totally damaged. The claimants thus claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed separate counters denying the averments made by the petitioners with regard to the narration of the accident. They have also denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The version of claimants with regard to the age and income of the deceased, nature of business and the income from agriculture have also been denied. It is the case of the respondents that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and exorbitant. Their specific case is that the deceased was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in occurring the accident. It is also their case that the liability in respect of the damages to the car is limited to only Rs.6,000/-. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioners have to prove that the deceased had valid driving license at the time of accident. 7. In order to prove their claim, the first claimant is examined as PW- 1 and PWs.2and 3 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-28 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses are examined, but Exs.B-1, attested copy of insurance policy, is marked with the consent of the parties. 8. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal relied on Exs.A-12 to A-24 and came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased from business was Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that since the deceased had not shown the agricultural income in the income tax returns, the income from agriculture has to be treated as nil. Thus the Tribunal, after calculating the income of the deceased at Rs.1,80,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, had taken the loss of dependency at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier ‘12’ and awarded the compensation of Rs.14,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transport and funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.5,000/- to each petitioner towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages to the car. In total, an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- was awarded to the petitioners. The Tribunal also observed that out of the compensation amount of Rs.15,20,000/-, the first petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,20,000/-, second and third petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each and fourth and fifth petitioners are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners filed several documents to show that the deceased had large extent of agricultural lands and also filed Ex.A-28, income certificate issued by the MRO, but the Tribunal committed an error in not taking into consideration the income from agriculture. It is also his submission that basing on Ex.A-28, the certificate issued by the MRO and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the Tribunal ought to have taken the agricultural income of the deceased at Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and that after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken the loss of earning at Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. It is also argued that though the relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘16’, the Tribunal had wrongly applied multiplier ‘12’. It is also argued that since the number of the dependants is five, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th out of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 10. Mr. Subbarao, the learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that admittedly the deceased did not show any agricultural income in his income tax returns. So the agricultural income cannot be taken into consideration and it should be treated as nil. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on STATE OF HARYANA v. JASBIR KAUR [1], and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. DANDUGULA BHEEM BAI [2]. It is also his submission that the agricultural land will remain with the family of the deceased and the petitioners can engage the labour and manager to look after the agricultural operations and in such a case, there will not be any loss of income from agriculture. He has also submitted that where the deceased was self-employed, the question of making an addition to the income of the deceased does not arise. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax payable by the deceased while determining the annual incomeo f the deceased. 11. In the light of the above contentions, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the driver or whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? And 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether it has to be reduced or enhanced? ISSUE NO.1: 12. The specific case of the petitioners is that on 20-12-2000 at about 7-30 PM, while the deceased and the first petitioner (PW-1) were proceeding from Hyderabad to Karimnagar in a Matiz car driven by the deceased and when they reached Gagalapur bus stage, the offending lorry came from the opposite direction, being driven by it’s driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the car, due to which the deceased and the first petitioner received injuries and while they were being shifted to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 13. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. She is the only eyewitness examined in this case. According to her she was accompanying her husband on the fateful day while proceeding from Hyderabad to Karimnagar. When they were at a distance of 30 KM away from Karimnagar at about 7-30 PM, the accident occurred near Gagallapur bus stage. According to PW-1, the lorry bearing No.ATT 4764 driven by the second respondent came from opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their car No.AP 9 AE 252 driven by the deceased. She has also deposed that the deceased was driving the car on the left side of the road and the lorry came upon their car and dashed against it. After dashing the car the lorry rushed towards the well situated on the side of the road and fell on it. She sustained minor injuries. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner and that he is responsible for the accident. 14. There is no rebuttal evidence in this case. PW-1 is an injured witness. Her presence at the place of accident is not disputed. She is a natural witness. One Chinthalapalli Mohan Reddy lodged the report with the police. The contents of the FIR also go to show that PW-1 sustained injuries in the same accident. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, which shows that the police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry (second respondent). Exs.A-3 and A-4 are the certified copies of the inquest and post-mortem reports respectively. Ex.A-5 is the C.C. of the dependant certificate. Ex.A-6 is the injury certificate of the first petitioner. Ex.A-7 is the copy of the report of the M.V. Inspector, which shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. Ex.A-8 is the C.C. of scene of offence panchanama. 15. The very fact that the lorry, after hitting the car, went upto a well and fell down in a ditch shows the speed at which it was being driven at the time of accident. A-27 is the original driving licence of the deceased which shows that the deceased had valid driving licence at the time of accident. The oral evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the contents of the above referred documents proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. 16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue stands confirmed. ISSUE NO.2: 17. The petitioners have claimed Rs.50 lakhs towards compensation. Their specific case is that the deceased was running a medical shop and doing contract business and also getting income from agriculture. As seen from the evidence the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was getting income from business and agriculture. According to PW-1, the deceased was running a medical shop in the name and style of Sujatha Medical Hall at Karimnagar and he was doing contract and other side business and earning Rs.2 lakhs per annum besides agricultural income. The deceased was an income tax assessee. The income tax returns shows that the income of the deceased was Rs.26,000/- in the year 1988-89 it was increased gradually to Rs.1,80,000/- in the year 1999-2000. 18. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. According to him the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/- from business and Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. PW-3 is the income tax consultant. According to him, the deceased was the proprietor of Sujatha Medical Hall and he was getting the minimum income of Rs.1,80,000/- at the time of his death. The deceased was an income tax assessee from the assessment year 1988-89 until his death. The last return was filed for the assessment year 2000-01. 19. Exs.A-12 to A-24 are the income tax returns pertaining to the deceased. The status was shown as individual. The income of the deceased declared from his business is as follows: S.No. Assessment Year Income of the deceased (in rupees) 1. 1988-89 26,392/- 2. 1989-90 21,818/- 3. 1990-91 24,340/- 4. 1991-92 35,820/- 5. 1992-93 31,140/- 6. 1993-94 43,780/- 7. 1994-95 56,000/- 8. 1995-96 73,310/- 9. 1996-97 95,630/- 10. 1997-98 1,11,280/- 11. 1998-99 1,38,300/- 12. 1999-2000 1,77,720/- 13. 2000-01 1,63,270/- 20. As observed by the Tribunal, there is gradual increase in the income of the deceased from year to year. However, there may be fluctuations in the business and consequently in the income of the deceased. Moreover it has to be kept in mind that the assets of the business would remain with the family of the deceased. The actual loss of dependency to the family is the contribution of the deceased to run the business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in RANI GUPTA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. [3] observed as follows: “In this case, however, the deceased was a businessman. What was the actual loss of dependency to the family was his contribution to run the business. The assets of the business remained. The amount of compensation, therefore, was required to be determined keeping in view that factor in mind.” 21. It is a fact that no amount of money can really compensate the claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased, because the life is so precious, which cannot be valued in terms of money. What is required to be done is that the claimants have to be awarded compensation which appears to be just and reasonable. The amount of compensation should be neither too excessive nor megre. Efforts have to be made to see that the claimants would be kept almost in the same position in which they would have lived had the deceased lived. The nature of the job or business and other sources of income, the number of dependants, the assets of the family etc., have to be taken into consideration while determining the loss of earnings due to the death of the deceased. 22. With regard to the other business such as contracts and other side business is concerned, there is no satisfactory evidence to substantiate the same. In DANDUGULA BHEEM BAI’s case (2 supra), it was held that where in a case there is no evidence to show that the deceased was undertaking contract works and was doing business such contention cannot be accepted unless there is documentary or independent evidence to substantiate the same. 23. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. However, admittedly, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax. As seen from the income tax returns filed by the deceased, he had paid an amount of Rs.20,684/- towards income tax for the year 1999-2000 and Rs.17,984/- for the financial year 2000-01. Therefore, if an amount of Rs.20,000/- on average basis is deducted towards income tax payable by the deceased from his income, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,60,000- per annum from business. 24. Coming to the agricultural income, the evidence of PW-1 shows that the deceased was having 10 acres of went land, 8 acres of irrigated dry land and 7 acres of grazing land. Her specific case is that in the wet land the deceased used to raise paddy during karief and rabi seasons i.e., twice in a year and in the irrigated land he used to raise commercial crops like chilli and used to get net income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. Subsequently she filed additional affidavit and deposed that the deceased was having 10 acres of wet land and 9 acres of irrigated dry land and 6.24 acres of other dry land and the total income from agriculture was Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. Ex.A-8 is the certificate issued by the Tahsildar showing the survey numbers and the extent of land possessed by the deceased. The said certificate also shows that the deceased was getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. PWs.1 to 3 initially filed chief affidavits stating that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, but subsequently, they have filed additional affidavits stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. 25. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the witnesses have changed their version from time to time and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed. It is also his contention that there is no basis for the MRO to issue the income certificate of the deceased in Ex.A-28 and that the MRO, who issued Ex.A-28, was not examined. Of course Exs.A-9 and A-10 pahanies for the years 2001-02 and 2000-01 respectively, show that the deceased was owning about 25 acres of land which includes 10 acres of wet land, 9 acres of irrigated dry land and 6 acres of other dry land. Ex.A-28 also shows that the lands are kept fallow since the year 2001-02. According to PW-1 she has no acquaintance to the agricultural work and she is unable to look after the same. Even if the evidence of PW-1 is believed that the lands were kept fallow for two years that does not mean that the lands would be kept fallow forever. As far as the agricultural lands are concerned, the lands would remain with the petitioners. 26. Admittedly the deceased had not shown the income from agriculture in his income tax returns. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deceased is not required to file income return on the income derived from Hindu Undivided Family. Anyhow it is an admitted case that the deceased was not personally cultivating the agricultural lands. He was engaging agricultural labourers even as per the grounds of Appeal filed by the petitioners wherein they have specifically mentioned that the deceased was cultivating the lands by engaging labourers from time to time. 27. In JASBIR KAUR’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that: “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. Attendant circumstances have to be considered.” 28. As discussed above, the lands would remain with the claimants. The actual loss of earnings would be the loss of supervision of agriculture by the deceased and therefore, the loss of earnings from agriculture have to be calculated on the basis of the value of the supervision work being done by the deceased. Therefore, the loss of earnings from agriculture have to be estimated as the loss of supervisory charges. It has to be seen that the deceased was running a medical shop in Karimanagar. It is common knowledge that nowadays even agricultural coolies are getting an income of Rs.70/- to Rs.100/- per day. Considering the large extent of lands, the supervisory charges can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus if an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is taken towards supervision charges of the deceased, the loss of earnings from agriculture towards loss of supervisory charges comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. Thus the total income of the deceased from business and agriculture comes to Rs.1,96,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + Rs.36,000/-) per annum. 29. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SMT. SARALA VERMA & ORS. V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. [4], the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd where the number of dependants are 2 to 3, and 1/4th where the number of dependants are 4 to 6. 30. In this case the dependants are wife, two children, father and mother of the deceased. Therefore, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/4th of the income, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.1,47,000/- per annum. According to PW-2, the date of birth of the deceased is 13-06-1960. Since the deceased had crossed 40 years and entered into 41 year by the date of accident, as per SARLA VERMA’s case (5 supra), the multiplier applicable to the age group 41-45 is ‘14’. Therefore, after multiplying the loss of earnings with multiplier ‘14’, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,58,000/- (Rs.1,47,000/- X 14). 31. As far as the damages to the car are concerned, admittedly except the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, no documentary evidence is adduced to show the expenses incurred towards repairs of the car or for purchasing parts of the car. Of course photographs showing the damages to the car have been filed. Though it appears that extensive damage seems to have been caused to the car, but in the absence of any documentary evidence, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the Tribunal awarding Rs.25,000/- under this head and the same is confirmed. 32. Towards love and affection, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- each, in total Rs.25,000/-. But, as per SARALA VERMA’s case (5 supra), the petitioners are not entitled to any amount towards loss of love and affection and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is liable to be set aside. 33. In so far as the amounts awarded under other heads are concerned, the Tribunal rightly awarded the same and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same and they are confirmed. 34. Since the fourth petitioner was aged about 71 years on the date of filing of the claim petition, though he is a practising advocate, considering his age, we feel that some amount can be awarded to him treating him as dependant of the deceased. 35. After including the amounts under other heads to the total loss of