Judgment : By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The appeal is preferred by the Insurance company-appellant against the award dated 211. 2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. 3. The deceased Kannan met with a motor vehicle accident on 9. 2004 at about 9.00 p.m. When he was a pillion rider in a bicycle belonging to one Balamurugan, a load van bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-2838 belonging to the fourth respondent herein came in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the deceased. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the load van driver or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After Considering, the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the load van and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,06,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under: Loss of income : Rs.3,84,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.2,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs.20,000/- Total : Rs.4,06,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier of 16 while arriving at the compensation under the head of loss of income to the family and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Exhibits P-1 to P11 were marked P.W.1 is the, mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Mr. Balamurugan rider of the cycle, who took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.3 is one Vaidhyanathan, relative of the deceased. Exhibit P-1 is the Photo copy of the First Information Report. Exhibit P-2 is the copy of the Motor vehicle Inspectors Report. Exhibit P-3 is the copy of the Ration Card. Exhibit P-4 is the postmortem Certificate. Exhibit P-5 is the Rough Sketch. Exhibit P-6 is the Identity card of the deceased. Exhibit P-1 is the legal heir certificate. Exhibit P-8 is the attested copy of the First Information Report. Exhibit P-9 is the attested copy of the P.W.2. Exhibit P-10 is the attested copy of the P.W.4. Exhibit P11 is the attested copy of the charge sheet. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no documents were marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the load van belonging to the fourth respondent herein and the said finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and Another (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows at pp. 999 and 1000 of MLJ: "7. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 601 and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942) AC 601. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 601 and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942) AC 601. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 . After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra). "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things it has to take into account many imponderables e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have, contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have, live or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether". "The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependents. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase". "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase". "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age or the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last". "It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum, as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years– virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 – and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate, lump sum payment, the effective; multiplier, would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible". In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 , this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies method followed in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra) stated thus: "In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd (supra) also first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependents remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependents remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reason why Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra) case, usually English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals/Courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance method without making deduction for imponderables ..... Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, than deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier". (emphasis supplied) 8. In the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others v. Mohammed Jameel and Another (2009) 2 SCC 225 : (2009) 6 MLJ 951, the Apex Court has held as follows at pp. 953 & 954 of MLJ: "9. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just". However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus the expression "which appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. Thus the expression "which appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 10. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his heard among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales." At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object or providing compensation is to place the claimants, to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 11. The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependant came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking; for the Bench observed thus: "In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extant of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even, partly a conjecture. Therefore, the actual extant of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even, partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principles is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants" of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained". 12. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra) case. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether". 13. Thus, for arriving at a just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for, the support of himself and his dependants at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalizing it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalizing it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue". After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. 9. At the time of accident, the deceased Kannan was aged about 20 years. He was a mason and was earning a sum of Rs.130/-per day. The driver of the load van was charge sheeted for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) in Cr.No.681 of 2004 on the file of the Sembanoor Police Station. P.W.1 is the first claimant/mother of the deceased and in her evidence, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.130/- per day. The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.120/- per day and being a mason, he might have not worked for all 30 days in a month. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. By considering the age of the deceased at 20 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and determined the annual income as Rs.36,000/-(3000x12) and assessed the total loss of income as follows: 36,000 x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- Out of which, 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.1,92,000/-towards personal expenses has been deducted and awarded the balance amount of Rs.3,84,000/-as loss of income to his family. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 16. Since the claimants are the father and mother of the deceased, the age of the mother should be taken into consideration. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Shanti Pathak and Others (2007) 6 MLJ 707: (2007) ACJ 2188, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows at p. 708 of MLJ: "7. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. Monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Shanti Pathak and Others (2007) 6 MLJ 707: (2007) ACJ 2188, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows at p. 708 of MLJ: "7. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. Monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500 as held by the Tribunal end the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000. The same shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due". Following the aforesaid judgment, the age of the mother should be taken into consideration in the present case, the age or the mother is 46 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 13 as per schedule II of Motor vehicle Act. Accordingly, if the multiplier of 13 is adopted the total loss of income comes to Rs.4,68,000/- (3,000 x 12 x 13) out of which, 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.1,56,000/-is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. Hence, Rs.3,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of income is hereby reduced to Rs.3,14,000/-. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Considering the date of accident and the cost of living over the said period, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and the same is hereby awarded. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of love and affection. After taking into consideration the fact that the parents lost their son, it is fair, just and reasonable to award Rs.20,000/- under this head and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. Also, the Tribunal awarded interest rat at 7.5%. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of love and affection. After taking into consideration the fact that the parents lost their son, it is fair, just and reasonable to award Rs.20,000/- under this head and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. Also, the Tribunal awarded interest rat at 7.5%. Considering the date of accident i.e. 9. 2004, which is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss of income : Rs.3,14,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.5,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs.20,000/- Total : Rs.3,39,000/- Further, in respect of the third respondent/claimant, the Tribunal has correct in rejecting the compensation payable to her, on the ground that she is only the daughter of the predeceased sister of the deceased herein. Therefore, the respondents/claimants 1 and 2 are alone entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,39,000/-with interest rate at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 10. The appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation amount of Rs.3,39,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till deposit, by making proper application. 11. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.