Judgment :- 1. The above appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 04.04.2002 made in MACTOP No.1082 of 1993 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II at Coimbatore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Sasikala met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.08.1992 at about 14.15 hours. While the said deceased along with the claimants standing at the Min nagar bus stop, Udumalpet-Pollachi Road, Pollachi, a bus bearing registration No. TN57N-0192 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Sasikala. Due to the said impact, she died on the spot. The claimants are the husband and sons of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.9,60,500/- but restricted their claim to Rs.9,50,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation 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 appellant-Transport Corporation or not? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any claim? If so, what is the compensation?" 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 driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,95,336/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition and the details of the same are as under: Loss of income Rs. 1,80,336/- Loss of future prospects Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total: Rs. 4,95,336/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal, questioning only the quantum of the award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal already awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,336/-towards a loss of income and further, the Tribunal should not have awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-under the head of future prospects. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection which is on the higher side. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal already awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,336/-towards a loss of income and further, the Tribunal should not have awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-under the head of future prospects. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection which is on the higher side. 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 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. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, one Manickavasagam, who is the driver of the vehicle, was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1-Manoharan is the husband of the deceased and P.W.2-Sadasivam is the manager of the company, where the deceased was working. Ex.P1 is the F.I.R., Ex.P2 is the Post-mortem Report, Ex.P3 is the legal heir Certificate, Ex.P4 is the salary certificate, Ex.P5 is the details regarding allowances, Ex.P6 is the copy of the observation mahazar, Ex.P7 is the rough sketch, Ex.P8 is the Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, Ex.P9 is the Judgment copy, Ex.P10 is the permission letter, Ex.P11 is the last salary certificate and Ex.P12 is the salary 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 bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years. She was a sales clerk working in Sarvodaya Sang, Pollachi. P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased, has deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.1,325/- per month. In respect of her age, there is no dispute. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 35 years. P.W.2, who is the manager of the Sarvodaya Sang, has deposed in his evidence that the deceased was worked under him and was earning Rs.1,325/- per month, Ex.P4 is the salary certificate, which also corroborated the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.1,325/-. Out of the said sum, after deducting 1/3 ie. Rs.441/-towards personal expenses viz., (1325 X 1/3 = 441), the Tribunal arrived at an amount of Rs.884/- (1325 - 441) as the deceaseds contribution to the family and fixed the annual income at Rs.10,608/-(884 X 12). The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased Sasikala as 35 years, has adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.1,80,336/- (10,608 X 17). Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, I am of the view that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly salary and adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the loss of income and hence, the amount awarded under this head is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards future prospects. The age of the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident and the retirement age is 58 years. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards future prospects. The age of the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident and the retirement age is 58 years. Another co-employee one Nallasamy, who joined along with the deceased, has now got promotion and getting the salary of Rs.5,082/-, Ex.P12 is the salary certificate given by the employer to prove the same. After taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal was of the view that if no accident had occurred on that day, the deceased would have been continuing more than 20 years in the employment and she would have also got promotion and received the salary of Rs.5,082/-, which the co-employee Nallasamy has now drawn. After considering all these facts, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards future prospects. The counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that when the Tribunal already awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,336/-towards loss of income, it cannot be awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future prospects and the same has to be deleted. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation under this head and has also relied upon the recent Supreme Court Judgment reported in 2009(13) SC Cases 654 in the case of (Raj Rani and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others) in which, the Apex Court has considered the scope of awarding compensation towards future prospects of the deceased and Para-12 reads as follows: "12. The deceased was aged about 42 years. If the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants were to be believed and we see no reason as to why they should not be, his future prospect also could not have been ignored for the purpose of determining the annual income. For the said purpose, immediate future prospect would be a relevant factor. It is possible in a given case, where the chance of promotion is remote or the deceased was at the end of his career, his future prospect would be kept out of consideration. But, evidently, he was to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. If he was to be so promoted, his income would have been around 25,000/-. The said factor, therefore, was required to be considered. But, evidently, he was to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. If he was to be so promoted, his income would have been around 25,000/-. The said factor, therefore, was required to be considered. " Following the principles enunciated in the Judgment cited Supra and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount awarded under this head is excessive and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,85,000/-towards future prospects as against the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection. The husband of the deceased was 36 years old and the other claimants are also minors at the time of the accident. The elder one is seven years and the younger one is two years. Taking into consideration the age of the minor children, who lost their mother, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards loss of love and affection as against the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Considering the date of accident, which had occurred on 31.08.1992 and also prevailing the rate of interest during that period the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income : Rs.1,80,336/- Future prospects : Rs.1,85,000/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 85,000/- Loss of Consortium : Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.4,65,336/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.4,65,336/-with interest at the rate of 9% as against the sum of Rs.4,95,336/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is represented by both the learned counsel that already the award amount has been deposited by the appellant-Transport Corporation as per the order of the Court dated 04.04.2002. 10,000/- Total Rs.4,65,336/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.4,65,336/-with interest at the rate of 9% as against the sum of Rs.4,95,336/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is represented by both the learned counsel that already the award amount has been deposited by the appellant-Transport Corporation as per the order of the Court dated 04.04.2002. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants stated that the second respondent Kannan had already declared as major and the third respondent, who was two years at the time of the accident is now attained majority. Therefore, all the claimants are permitted to with draw the modified compensation of Rs.4,65,336/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, if any, on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.