Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 09.04.2009 made in MCOP No.408 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Additional District Court), Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased-Lavanya met with motor accident on 19.01.2008 at 15.30 hours. The said deceased minor Lavanya travelling as a pillion rider in motor cycle, belonging to her uncle Senthil Kumar, who is the rider. On the extreme left side of the road, near Green Park school opposite to rice Mill, Attur – Salem Main Road, at that time an Ambassador car belonging to the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company which bearing registration No.TN-TMW-4943 came from Attur to Salem in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, the deceased and also rider of the motor cycle thrown out of the motor cycle and the pillion rider died on the spot and the rider sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimants are father, sister and brother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company has 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 driver of the car belonging to the 4th respondent? 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 and also relying on the decisions in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Nagarajan Reported In 2007 (2) TNMAC Page 274 and In The Case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and Others reported in 2008 ACJ Page 1834, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the fourth respondent and hence the appellant-Insurance Company and fourth respondent are liable to pay compensation and awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. 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 and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant 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. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation Mr. Rajakumaran, who is the Administrative Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W. Is the uncle of the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. PW3 is the Doctor Rajamanickam. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the Discharge summary. Ex.P4 is the medical bills. Ex.P5 is the copy of the post mortem Report. Ex.P6 is the Transfer Certificate of Sathya. Ex.P7 is the copy of the Lavanyas Postmortem report. Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Ex.P9 is the disability certificate. 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 car and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. appropriate multiplier" (emphasis supplied) 7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 10 years old. She was studying in Sixth Standard in R.C. Model School at Avinashi. PW2 is the father of the deceased. In his evidence, he stated that the age of the deceased was 11 years at the time of the accident and also she is studying in 6th standard. Ex.P7 is the Postmortem Report, in which, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 11 years, The Tribunal followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the "Lata Wadhwa and Other Vs. State of Bihar and Others" Reported In 2001 ACJ Page 1735, wherein it has been held as follows: "Quantum – Fatal accident – Deceased children age 10 to 15, students of classes VI to X – Death due to fire in pandal – Contribution assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum adopted multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.3,60,000/- plus conventional amount of Rs.50,000/- each child; total Rs.4,10,000/-" In the above Judgment, the age of the deceased was between 10 and 15 years and fixed the loss of income at Rs.24,000/- and adopted multiplier 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- plus conventional amount of Rs.50,000/-, totalling to Rs.4,10,000/-. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- as compensation by following the decision of the Apex Court cited supra. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that when the deceased is a non earning person, the notional income should be estimated at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tribunal is wrong in fixing the annual income at Rs.24,000/-. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others Reported In 2009 (1) TNMAC 593, wherein notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum has been fixed as per second schedule in the case of deceased non-working and non-earning members. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others Reported In 2009 (1) TNMAC 593, wherein notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum has been fixed as per second schedule in the case of deceased non-working and non-earning members. Following the above judgment, in the present case, the notional income is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum as against Rs.24,000/-fixed by the Tribunal. Out of the said sum of Rs.15,000/-, if 1/3rd of Rs.5000/- is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- is taken as the annual contribution of the deceased to his family. The correct multiplier should be adopted for below 15 years age group is 15. Thus, the loss of income works out to Rs.1,50,000/-(10,000 x 12 x 15). Therefore, loss of income is taken as Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.3,60,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses. I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. Further the Supreme Court also held that the reasonable sum towards loss of damages should be awarded. No amount has been awarded towards loss of damages to cloth and articles. Hence, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1000/-under this head. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others Reported In 2009 (1) TNMAC 593 cited supra, wherein in paragraphs 31 to 34 it has been held as follows: "31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the courts below. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 ; Sarla Dixit V. Balwant Yadav, 1996 (3) SCC 179 ; and Lata Wadhwa case (supra). 32. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear the claim with regard to future prospect should have been be 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 shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect 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 (supra) and M.S. Grewal (Supra), the Supreme Court recognised such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards 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". 33. Besides, the Courts have been awarding compensation for pain and suffering and towards non-pecuniary damages. Reference in this regard can be made to R.D. Hattangadi case (supra). Further, the said compensation must be just and reasonable. This Court has observed as follows in State of Haryana V. Jasbir Kaur, 2004(1)TN MAC 337 (SC); 2003 (7) SCC 484 , at 486: "7. Reference in this regard can be made to R.D. Hattangadi case (supra). Further, the said compensation must be just and reasonable. This Court has observed as follows in State of Haryana V. Jasbir Kaur, 2004(1)TN MAC 337 (SC); 2003 (7) SCC 484 , at 486: "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be “just and reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 34. So far as the pecuniary damage is concerned we are of the considered view both the Tribunal as well as the High Court has awarded the compensation on the basis of Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 34. So far as the pecuniary damage is concerned we are of the considered view both the Tribunal as well as the High Court has awarded the compensation on the basis of Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act. However, we may notice here that as far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal does not award any compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages. However, in Appeal the High Court has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and has awarded nonpecuniary damages of Rs.75,000/-. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. In this context, it becomes duty of the Court to award just compensation for non-pecuniary loss. As already noted it is difficult to quantify the non-Pecuniary Compensation, nevertheless, the endeavour of the Court must be to provide a just, fair and reasonable amount as compensation keeping in view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in his category by Rs.75,000/-in all connected Appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard." In the present case, the age of the deceased was 11 years at the time of the accident. Following the principles enunciated in the above said judgment, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards future prospects and another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum. The accident was occurred on 19.01.2008. Therefore, the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of modified compensation are as follows: Pecuniary loss Rs. 1,50,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of damages Rs. 1,000/- Non-pecuniary loss Rs. 75,000/- Loss of future prospects Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 3,06,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. as against Rs.4,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited. 5,000/- Loss of damages Rs. 1,000/- Non-pecuniary loss Rs. 75,000/- Loss of future prospects Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 3,06,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. as against Rs.4,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation amount of Rs.3,06,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with accrued interest thereon, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, as apportioned by the Tribunal on making proper application. Since the 3rd respondent is a minor, the Tribunal is directed to deposit his share in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank till he attains majority. The father of the minor, who is the guardian, is permitted to withdraw accrued interest thereon once in six months. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.