JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 26.07.2007 passed in MACP No.390 of 1991. Original claimants; widow and children of deceased Kantibhai Patel had filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/from the opponents including the insurance company the present appellant. Kantibhai had died in a vehicular accident which took place on 26.12.1991. The insurance company has raised the issues of negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and also of the quantum. In the previous order dated 08.12.2017, the question of negligence was concluded in the following manner. “These three First Appeals are filed by the insurance company, the insurer of the tanker which got involved into an accident on 26.2.1991. The record would show that the tanker dashed violently with the two motorcycles coming from opposite direction causing instantaneous death of the four travellers of these two motorcycles. Four claim petitions came to be filed by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vyara. By a common judgment and award 26.7.2007, the Claims Tribunal disposed of three of the claim petitions, awarding different compensations to the claimants holding that it was the driver of the tanker who was solely negligent in causing the accident. The insurance company has challenged the award on the ground of negligence as well as quantum. Learned advocate for the insurance company was not present though the matters were called out twice. Having heard the learned advocate Shri Hakim for the claimants and having perused the documents on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the Claims Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to such a conclusion. All the four persons travelling on two separate motorcycles having died, the claimants were not in a position to produce any eyewitness to the incident. The Tribunal correctly recorded that the tanker of the driver would have been the best witness who was not examined. Immediately there was a possibility of drawing an adverse inference against him. The Tribunal in fact, in addition to these factors also minutely perused the panchnama of the scene of the incident which was produced at exh.97. A perusal of the panchnama would show that the road was eastwest road. The motorcyclists were apparently going from west to east. Both the motorcycles were extensively damaged. The Tribunal in fact, in addition to these factors also minutely perused the panchnama of the scene of the incident which was produced at exh.97. A perusal of the panchnama would show that the road was eastwest road. The motorcyclists were apparently going from west to east. Both the motorcycles were extensively damaged. One of them was completely crushed and found in the ditch by the road side. More significantly, the tanker which was travelling from east to west, was found from the ditch on the northern side of the road clearly indicating that it was the tanker driver who had taken his vehicle to the completely wrong side of the road and caused the accident. The recklessness of the driver is further manifest from the fact when we consider that the vehicle would have been moving at such an excessive speed that after first violently colliding with the motorcycles, the tanker still went to the completely wrong side of the road and fell in the ditch at a far distance away from the place where the two motorcycles were found. Both the motorcycles were on the correct side of the road. I therefore, have no hesitation in confirming the view of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the tanker. On the question of quantum, I would like to hear the advocate for the insurance company. S.O. to 15.12.2017. If on such date, advocate for the insurance company still does not appear, I may hear the counsel for the claimant and dispose of the appeals.” 2. The sole surviving question pertains to the quantum. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants produced evidence to establish that the claimant was engaged as a supervisor in the local sugar cooperative factory. According to the claimants, additionally he was also transporting sugarcane crop from various fields to the sugar factory, for which, he was paid sizable amount every year by the cooperative factory. Yet another source of the income of the deceased was his own agricultural operations. He held around 8 hectors of land where he grow sugarcane, which would be sold to the cooperative sugar factory. 3. The Tribunal believed the income of the deceased from his employment as a supervisor to be Rs.1,900/per month. Giving future rise of income, the Tribunal considered the prospective income at Rs.3500/per month. He held around 8 hectors of land where he grow sugarcane, which would be sold to the cooperative sugar factory. 3. The Tribunal believed the income of the deceased from his employment as a supervisor to be Rs.1,900/per month. Giving future rise of income, the Tribunal considered the prospective income at Rs.3500/per month. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was earning Rs.37,000/per annum from the work of transporting sugarcane. The deceased owned a tractor with a trolley and during the year 1991, the cooperative factory had paid a sum of Rs.61,953/to the deceased for transportation of sugar, for which, after deducting 40% towards the expenditure, the Tribunal came to the said figure. 4. Regarding the agricultural operations, the Tribunal took into account the certificate issued by the cooperative factory exh.70 which showed that the sugar cooperative factory had paid a sum of Rs.2,07,367/to the claimant for sale of sugarcane. The Tribunal sat apart 60% for expenditure and believed that the net income from such agricultural operations was Rs.82,800/. The Tribunal granted future rise and arrived at the prospective yearly income for agricultural operations at Rs.1,03,500/from all three sources, the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.1,82,700/as the net income of the deceased. The Tribunal thereafter sat apart 1/3rd for his personal expenditure and left a sum of Rs.1,22,000/by way of dependency benefit. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 and awarded a sum of Rs.13,42,000/towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal added Rs.20,000/towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/for funeral expenses and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,67,000/. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, I may refer to three heads of income of the deceased one by one. The claimants had examined Hitendrakumar Desai, Exh.65, who was the head timekeeper of the Sugar factory. He had produced at Exh.66, the certificate of the income of the deceased which showed that the deceased was employed as the zone supervisor since the year 1968. His monthly salary was Rs.1920/plus 20% bonus and 10% P.F. contribution. He would also receive incentive bonus and statutory perks. Considering the basic salary at Rs.1920/and other allowances referred to in the said certificate, one can safely take the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.2500/at the time of his death. The deceased was aged 49 years as held by the Tribunal. He would also receive incentive bonus and statutory perks. Considering the basic salary at Rs.1920/and other allowances referred to in the said certificate, one can safely take the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.2500/at the time of his death. The deceased was aged 49 years as held by the Tribunal. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) GLR 536, 30% rise in future income would be called for. His monthly prospective income therefore would come to Rs.3250/. 6. Regarding the transportation of sugarcane, the claimants had examined one Naginbhai Thakorbhai at Exh.67. He was a manager of the staff society of the cooperative factory. He produced certificate Exh.68 showing the payments made to the deceased for transportation of sugarcane during different years, between the years 1987 to 1991. In the year 1991, he was paid sum of Rs.61,653/however, it has come on record that the deceased had shortly before his death, sold his trolley on 03.12.1990. Considering this fact as also considering that he was a full time employee of sugar cooperative factory and also was engaged in his other personal agricultural operations, it is not possible to accept this additional source of income. It would be too much to expect one single person to carry on three full time jobs viz. that of a full time employee as a supervisor, transportation of sugarcane for the sugar cooperative and active agricultural operations of growing sugarcane. This source of income is therefore discarded. 7. Regarding the agricultural operations, the claimants had examined one Yogeshbhai Dhirubhai, Senior Accountant Clerk of Sugar Cooperative. He produced a certificate at Exh.70 which shows the details of sugarcane supplied by the deceased to the cooperative and the amount payable for such produce to him for the year 1980-81 till 1989-90. For the last year of 1989-90 before his death, he had supplied a total of 380490 MT of sugarcane, for which, a sum of Rs.2,07,367/was payable to him. This was undoubtedly show sizable agricultural operations of the deceased. It has even otherwise come on record that he owned a tractor and for substantial period of time also a trolley. He was also an owner of nearly 8 Hector of agricultural land where he grew principally the sugarcane. This was undoubtedly show sizable agricultural operations of the deceased. It has even otherwise come on record that he owned a tractor and for substantial period of time also a trolley. He was also an owner of nearly 8 Hector of agricultural land where he grew principally the sugarcane. The conclusion of the Tribunal therefore that the deceased earned the gross sum of Rs.2,07,000/towards such agricultural operations and that 40% can be taken to be his net profit was perfectly justified. However, the learned Judge missed a point that after the death of the deceased, this entire income would not be lost to the family. Family of the deceased comprised of adult sons. The lands would be inherited by the family members and agricultural operations could be carried out by them. The Courts have of course recognized the principle of loss of supervision; in case of the principal member of the family involved in the agricultural work, dying in an accident. This would however be an entirely different proposition from awarding the entire amount of agricultural profit by way of loss of dependency benefit to the family. While assessing the loss of supervision, we must take relevant facts into account, which are; I. The deceased himself was employee as a full time supervisor. II. He was aged close to 50 years. III. Family had sons who were adult. IV. The area of the agricultural land and the nature of operations being carried out on such lands. 8. It would however be undoubtedly true that due to sudden demise of the head of the family who was actively engaged in agricultural operations since years, there would be drop in income, at least, temporarily. His supervision would be valuable and irreplaceable. Considering such factors, I adopt a sum of Rs.3,000/per month towards loss of supervisory benefits. This itself with passage of time and erosion of purchasing power of rupee, would have to be upwardly adjusted. Granting 25% increase on this head, this loss would come to Rs.3750/per month. The total loss of income therefore would be worked out at Rs.7000/( i.e. Rs.3250 + Rs.3750). This itself with passage of time and erosion of purchasing power of rupee, would have to be upwardly adjusted. Granting 25% increase on this head, this loss would come to Rs.3750/per month. The total loss of income therefore would be worked out at Rs.7000/( i.e. Rs.3250 + Rs.3750). 1/4th thereto or Rs.1750/would have to be sat apart for the personal expenditure of the deceased, leaving a net of Rs.5250/for the family per month or Rs.63000/per annum for the family adopting multiplier of 13 looking to the age of the deceased, loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.8,19,000/. Adding Rs.70,000/as suggested by the judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) under conventional heads, the total compensation would come to Rs.8,89,000/. The Claims Tribunal having awarded Rs.13,67,000/, there shall be reduction of Rs.4,78,000/from the compensation payable to the claimants. The amount invested by the Claims Tribunal shall be adjusted towards the amount deposited by the insurance company. Remaining amount be paid to the claimants. 9. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.