ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Appellants have preferred the present appeal claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the present misc. appeal may kindly be allowed, the judgment impugned judgment dated 14.11.2018 may kindly be modified and the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced as prayed in the claim petition." 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 15.10.2006 when Sukhmandra Singh was coming back to his home on the motor-cycle, and the respondent No. 1 while driving his Canter bearing RJ-13-G-7370 in a rash and negligent manner caused an accident which resulted into the death of Sukhmandra Singh. Thereafter, upon a claim petition being filed, learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submitted that as is apparent from the impugned award, the computation of the wages of deceased Sukhmandra Singh has not been properly made. It is also contended that admitted contract of two crops in a year worth Rs. 62,000/- was on record, and by simple calculation, if the owner of the land was being paid Rs. 62,000/- then the same amount should be estimated as expenses for raising the crops, and thus, the profit of deceased Sukhmandra Singh would not be less than Rs. 62,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that there are certain lands which belong to deceased Sukhmandra Singh and certain other lands belonging to his family members, which were being supervised by deceased Sukhmandra Singh and he was undertaking the agricultural activity. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that no definite income was derived out of the evidence rendered by the claimants, and thus, the estimation has been rightly done by the learned Tribunal. It is also contended that admitted age of deceased Sukhmandra Singh in the ration card reflects that he was more than 50 years of age at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the estimation is exactly correct, as the appellants/claimants could not prove the exact nature of agricultural activity undertaking by the deceased except the two crops on a contractual consideration of Rs. 62,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 613 , relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "9. 62,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 613 , relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "9. In our opinion, such an income cannot form the legal basis for determining the compensation. 10. In Jasbir Kaur case (supra), the claim was based on an assertion that the deceased was an agriculturist earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month by cultivating his land. Dealing with the question, this Court held: "8. xxxxxxxxx. 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." 11. Coming to the case on hand, the claim is based on the assertion that the deceased owned agricultural land apart from the abovementioned three mini-buses. The High Court rejected the claim insofar as it is based on the income from the land, on the ground that the income would still continue to accrue to the benefit of the family. Unfortunately, the High Court failed to see that the same logic would be applicable even to the income from the abovementioned three buses. The asset (three mini-buses) would still continue with the family and fetch income. The only difference, perhaps, would be that during his life time the deceased was managing the buses, but now, the claimants may have to engage some competent person to manage the asset, which, in turn, would require some payment to be made to such a manager. To the extent of such payment, there would be a depletion in the net income accruing to the claimants out of the asset. Therefore, the amount required for engaging the service of a manager and the salary payable to a driver - as it is asserted that the deceased himself used to drive one of the three buses - would be the loss to the claimants. In the normal course the claimants are expected to adduce evidence as to what would be the quantum of depletion in the income from the abovementioned asset on account of the abovementioned factors. In the normal course the claimants are expected to adduce evidence as to what would be the quantum of depletion in the income from the abovementioned asset on account of the abovementioned factors. Unfortunately, no such evidence was led by the claimants." 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that since the agricultural land remained productive, as it was at the time of the death of the person concerned, therefore, the compensation for the same ought not to be granted. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited above, this Court observes that the contract exhibit-23 is alone of Rs.62,000/- and contract exhibit-24 is of Rs.24,700/-. Thus, deceased Sukhmandra Singh was paying Rs. 86,700/- as contract money for the two crops in a year to the owners of the land in question. 9. On a bare perusal of Exhibits 23 and 24, this Court does not find that in lieu of the amount of Rs. 86,700/-, the owners were sharing any expenditure towards the agricultural activities. Thus, by all prudent conclusion, deceased Sukhmandra Singh's agricultural activity would result into receipts which could be divided into three portions; one portion would go to the owners of the land; second portion would go for the expenses and the third portion would come to the deceased Sukhmandra Singh's share. Thus, this Court concludes that out of the contractual amount, the income incurred by deceased Sukhmandra Singh would be Rs. 86,700/-. 10. As far as the independent lands are concerned, this Court finds that there is no specific averment made by appellants/claimants as to what was the exact nature of income being earned from the agricultural activity on the land owned by Sukhmandra Singh and his family members. 11. Moreover, this Court finds that it is also not there in the examination of the witnesses that deceased Sukhmandra Singh was earning a particular amount out of the land in question; Though his having agricultural land activity over the private land has not been disputed but in the cross-examination when it was asked whether any details have been brought about the income from the said land, the claimants/appellants could not point out any credible evidence to substantiate the same. 12. 12. This Court also finds that if Sukhmandra Singh was already having sufficient land and a contract to work upon, then there is no question of any supervisory or personal involvement in the private agricultural land in question, which might have been used by the family members and will continue to be used by them for the agricultural activity. 13. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is allowed. The monthly income of deceased Sukhmandra Singh shall be computed as 7,225/- instead of 3,000/-. However, this Court could have still considered some income out of the private land, in case the deceased was not having the income from the contractual agricultural activity. Deceased Sukhmandra Singh's has been computed on the basis of postmortem report, which is credible and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the multiplier to be applied shall be as per the age reflected in the postmortem report, which is 42 years. 14. In accordance with the aforesaid observations, the fresh computation of the compensation while applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 /Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is as follows:- Sr. No. Head Rs. 1. Monthly income 7,225 2. 25% future porspects. (7,225+1,806.25) 9,031.25 3. Personal expenses, as the number of dependents is 4. (9,031.25-2,257.81) 6,773.44 4. Multiplier of 14 (6,773.44x12x14) 11,37,937.92 5. General Expenses 70,000 6. Total (4+5) 12,07,937.92 7. Already awarded 4,25,000 Enhanced amount 7,82,937.92 15. Thus, the enhanced award of Rs. 7,82,938/- is granted which shall be payable along with along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within two months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after two months from today) till actual payment is made. All pending applications stand disposed of.