like sugarcane, wheat and groundnut in land Block No. 50, whereas, he was also taking crops i.e. Jawar and Wheat in land Block No. 115. There was no specific evidence about loss of agricultural income. It must be considered that the lands are very much available for cultivation by legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna. The deceased Ramkishan, who was already in service, was looking after the field by using supervisory skill, personal attention and labour. Considering this aspect and value of 1992, I presume loss of agricultural source at Rs.500/- per month i.e. Rs.6,000/- per year. As per the Judgment of Pranay Sethi's case, there will be further addition of 25% for future prospects. Loss for agricultural source would be Rs.7,500/-. Thus, total loss would be 49,116/-. After deducting one forth (¼) for personal expenses, loss of income would be Rs.36,837/- for the family. The appropriate multiplier would be '14' and total loss of income would be Rs.5,15,718/-. As per Pranay Sethy's case, there will be addition of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total comes to Rs.5,85,718/-. On account of 25% contributory negligence, one forth (¼) amount of Rs.1,46,429/- will have to be deducted and compensation payable for loss of income on account of death of Ramkishan would be Rs.4,39,289/-.
