HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO M.A.C.M.A.No.1232 of 2006 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) No.49712 of 2007 Dated: 21-06-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Mayuri Hotel, Godown Road, Nizamabad …Appellant AND Thammannagari Sridevi @ Indira And others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO M.A.C.M.A.No.1232 of 2006 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) No.49712 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and decree of I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, dated 24.11.2005 made in O.P.No.232 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants. First claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of Thammannagari Bhumreddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). According to the claimants, on 29.9.2000 at about 6.00 a.m. when the deceased was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP 25E 9744 from Pitlam towards Chinna Kodapgal, and when he reached near Chinna Kodapgal village shivar on Yellareddy to Nanded road, lorry bearing No.AHT 8284 owned by fourth respondent and insured with the appellant herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed came from opposite direction and dashed against the scooter of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and the front wheel of the lorry ran over on the scooter, and that due to the injuries and other multiple fractures, the deceased died on the spot. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation at Rs.18,00,000/- stating that the deceased was doing agriculture apart from contract works and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing his entire earnings to the claimants. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant-insurance company contested the claim denying the income, age of the deceased and denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It is prayed that in any event, if any liability is fastened on the insurance company, the rate of interest payable shall be restricted to 9 per cent. In order to prove the compensation claimed, the first claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was let in but, the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1 and the copy of F.I.R. was marked as Ex.C.1. As it was a hit and run case, P.W.2, an eyewitness to the accident was examined to prove that the lorry was involved in the accident. The Tribunal below after taking into consideration of the charge sheet-Ex.A.1 and the evidence of P.W.2 held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the only evidence available is P.W.1, who stated that the deceased was raising crops like turmeric, sugarcane, paddy and other commercial crops and was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. The said evidence has also been supported by the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 further stated that the deceased was raising turmeric, maize and other commercial crops and he deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. Ex.A.9 income certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pitlam shows that the deceased was an agriculturist and contractor and his annual income was Rs.1,20,000/- and that the certificate was issued for drawing claims only. Admittedly, the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot issue any such certificate certifying the income under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, any such certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer about the annual income of the deceased is not conclusive unless it is established by other evidence namely, by producing the pahanies about the crops raised by the deceased in the lands owned by him. No such evidence was produced by the claimants. In view of the same, the assessment of damages to compensate the claimants would be difficult because the income that is received by an agriculturist by cultivating the land depends on many factors such as climatic conditions, nature of soil, availability of water source etc. Admittedly, the evidence adduced by the claimants in the form of Exs.A.5 and A.6-pattadar passbooks show that the deceased was having Ac.7.35 ½ gts. of land, which was cultivated by him. That apart as per Ex.A.8-passbook, the claimant No.1 is also having lands, which shall also be taken into consideration, which was not considered by the Tribunal below. The deceased used to cultivate the land by engaging labour. It is now fairly well settled that when an agriculturist who cultivates the land dies, only the supervisory charges which will be spent by the family of the deceased for cultivating the lands has to be taken into consideration to arrive the loss of dependency. Taking into consideration of the above factor, it is not unreasonable to fix the supervisory charges being spent by the claimants at Rs.6,000/- per month to supervise for cultivating the lands. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years, 16 multiplier can be taken as a multiplicand for arriving the annual loss of supervisory charges. That is so, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.72,000/- (6,000/- x 12) and the total loss comes to Rs.11,52,000/- (72,000/- x 16). That apart, the first claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation etc. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at Rs.11,72,000/-. Accordingly, the total compensation is restricted to Rs.11,72,000/-. Before the Tribunal below, the insurance company filed a counter for restricting the rate of interest at 9% per annum. Having regard to the same, the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the awarded compensation shall be payable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The cross- objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ JUNE 21, 2011 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.