Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against award dated 03.02.2007 made in MCOP No.44 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. I, Erode. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 29.01.2006 at about 07.40 p.m., while the deceased Kavin kumar, was proceeding in his bicycle on the left side of the Jeeva Nagar Road from South to North, the town bus belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN-33-0895 which came from opposite direction, driven by its driver, who is the first respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained head injury. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode and on the way of the hospital, he died. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The 2nd respondent-Transport Corporation 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 first respondent-bus driver or not? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- TABLE Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimants and the amounts awarded under various heads are very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Transport Corporation 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. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Transport Corporation 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. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 – Shanmugam, who is the Driver of the 2nd respondent – bus, was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of observation Mahazar. Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 is the Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P5 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P6 is the copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P7 is the Legal heirship Certificate. Ex.P8 is the Sports Certificate. Exs.P9 & Ex.P10 are the Social Service Certificates. 6. After considering the above 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 first respondent. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another Reported In (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows: “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. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 . After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. 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 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 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 there from 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 dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year’s 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 of 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. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of 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 is 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 there from 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 there from 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 UP 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 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 dependent, 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. 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 Susamma Thomas 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, then deducting there from 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 Vs. Mohammed Jameel And Another Reported In (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, the Apex Court has held as follows: "13. 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. 14. 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 person(s) 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. 15. 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. 15. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p.181, para 5) “5. … 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 head 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 of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), 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. 18. 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: (AIR p.1) “In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent 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 principle 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.” 19. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. 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 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 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.” 20. 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 capitalising 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 the accident, the deceased was aged about 13 years and was studying in 7th Standard in Sengunthar High School, Erode and also he was a brilliant student and interested in participating various sports. PW1-in his evidence deposed that the deceased was studying 7th Standard at the time of the accident and Ex.P5 is the Postmortem Report in which the age of the deceased was mentioned at 14 years. PW1-in his evidence deposed that the deceased was studying 7th Standard at the time of the accident and Ex.P5 is the Postmortem Report in which the age of the deceased was mentioned at 14 years. Taking into consideration of the of Ex.P5, the age of deceased as 14 years and the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.1250/-and the Annual Income works out to 15,000/- . Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/-X 15) towards loss of income. Out of the said amount, if 1/3rd i.e. Rs.75,000/-is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to his family was determined at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.2,25,000/- - 75,000/-). Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the amount awarded under the head loss of income is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of love and affection, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which I feel is very low and meagre. Therefore, I feel that it would be very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.2,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently contended that the deceased was a brilliant student and interested in participating sports. To prove the same, the claimants also filed Ex.P8 Sports Certificate and Ex.P9 & P10 Social Service Certificates. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others [C.A.No.3608 of 2009 Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17525 of 2006 and Others Decided on 15.05.2009] in which the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-was awarded towards future prospects. In the paragraph 32 of the Judgment is as follows: "32. In view of discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear that the claim with regard to future prospects should have been addressed by the Courts below. While considering such claims, childs performance in school, the reputation of the school, etc. Might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records show that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospects would be presumed to be good and bright. While considering such claims, childs performance in school, the reputation of the school, etc. Might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records show that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospects would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and M.S. Grewal, 2001 ACJ 1719 (SC), the Apex Court recognised such future prospects as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation for future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.75,000/-(which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount, i.e., Rs.75,000/-is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court". After considering the principles enunciated in the Judgment of the Supreme Court, I feel that it would be very reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards future prospects. The details of the enhanced compensation as per the above discussions are as under:- TABLE Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.78,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 10. The second respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.78,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the same on proper application. 11. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.