and State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 PLJ 414, he has contended that in case of agricultural land, the normal rule about the deprivation of income was not applicable, where the agriculture income is the source then the attendant circumstances have to be considered and only loss of managerial as well as loss of minimum wages of labour to manage the agriculture land is to be considered. He has argued that in the present case, the MACT has rightly taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as annual loss which include both loss of managerial skills for business as well as for the agriculture. He has contended that the business is still running and the agricultural land is also being looked after and in these circumstances only the amount required for engaging the service of manger is payable to the claimants and not the entire income which was being derived was to be considered. By placing reliance upon Rani Gupta & others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, (2009) RCR (Civil) 900 , he has contended that the compensation should be just and it should not be a bonanza or largesse for the claimants. He has contended that though no future prospects are to be added to the income of the deceased Sant Ram, but still if this Court find it just to award the same, then the future prospects are to be granted only upto 25% of income of the deceased, as deceased was approximately 48 years of age at the time of his death. 12. He has contended that the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- granted under the conventional head is also to be reduced to a sum of Rs.70,000/- in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009. He has contended that the Income Tax Returns of deceased for the previous years
