JUDGMENT
R.K. Varma, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the award dated 17.6.1982 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 83 of 1981 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,0007- only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in respect of the death of the deceased Mohan, an agriculturist aged 20 years, who died as a result of a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. MTB 2638 which hit the deceased, who was going on a cycle on Badnatar-Ratlam Road.
2. The widow, father and daughter of the deceased filed the instant claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,74,3007-alleging that the claimants have been deprived of the learnings of the deceased who was tilling 28 bighas of agricultural lands of his own and was earning wages at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The young widow, the minor daughter and the aged father have also claimed non-pecuniary damages to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. An amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- was claimed by way of dependency from the earnings of the deceased. The claim was resisted by the respondents. After trial, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum only as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has made an unreasonable assumption that the deceased had the capacity of earning Rs. 4/- per day as an agricultural labourer and on that basis has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 120. The earnings from the cultivation of lands owned by the deceased have not been taken into account, and as such, the claimants have been deprived of just and fair compensation. The learned Counsel has submitted that the kishta bandi khatoni, Exh. A-1, shows that the agricultural holding which stands in the name of the father of the deceased is 8.200 hectares, i.e., nearly 28 bighas as alleged by the claimants. The widow-claimant Sagoo, AW 1, has stated that the agricultural lands were tilled by the deceased and his father and that the deceased had a brother who was a minor of six or seven years only,
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the earnings from agricultural property can be attributed mainly to the two factors, namely, the contribution of the land and the contribution of labour by the tiller. On a reasonable estimate it can be fairly presumed that the contribution of land and labour to the earnings from agricultural lands is half and half and on such assumption the learned Tribunal should have assessed the earning capacity of the deceased. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted.
5. The witness Sagoo, AW 1, has stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 15,000/-to Rs. 16,000/- per annum from agriculture, Even on a modest estimate it would not be too much to assume that the 28 bighas of land cultivated by the deceased and his father would yield atleast Rs. 12,000/- as income par annum. Out of this yield of income, Rs. 6,000/- can be assumed to be the contribution of labour out of which the deceased who was a youngman of 20 years can be presumed to have made his contribution of labour to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. It can also be reasonably estimated that out of this personal earning of Rs. 3,000/- the deceased would have contributed an income of Rs. 2,000/- per year for his family. Since the deceased was only 20 years of age, it would be reasonable to adopt a multiplier of 20 years to compute the amount of dependency to which the dependants of the deceased would be entitled. Computing thus, the widow and the daughter of the deceased must be held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- by way of dependency. In addition, I deem it just and fair to award Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as non-pecuniary damages to the father of the deceased. Thus, the total amount awardable to the appellant-claimants works out to be Rs. 55,000/- and I hold that the appellant-claimants are entitled to receive that sum as compensation from the respondents who are held liable jointly and severally to pay the same, together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellant-claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. Out of the said amount of compensation, Rs. 30,000/- shall be payable to the widow, Sagoobai, Rs. 20,000/- to the minor daughter Munnibai and Rs. 5,000/- to the father Bagdiram. The amount of interest shall be payable rateably on the said amounts of compensation. It is also directed that the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest payable to the minor daughter of the deceased shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period till the minor Munnibai attains majority.
7. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.