Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 made in MCOP No.1113/97 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Tindivanam. 2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows: The deceased Parvathi met with motor vehicle accident on 26.11.1997 at about 11.45 a.m. The deceased was travelling as passenger in the bus bearing registration No.TN 32 N 0808 Route No.177E proceeding from Kallakurichi to Madras when The bus nearing Salavathy on GST Road, a lorry bearing registration No.TN04 C 0592 belonging to the fifth respondent, which came in an opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bus. Due to the said impact, the deceased died and some other passengers were also injured. The claimants are husband and three daughters of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 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 fifth respondents lorry? 2. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation? 3. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to?" 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 drivers of both the lorry as well as the appellant/Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs.2,16,,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- ---------------- Total... Rs. 2,30,000/- --------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation alone has filed the present appeal. The sixth respondent-Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the award. 4. 4,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- ---------------- Total... Rs. 2,30,000/- --------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation alone has filed the present appeal. The sixth respondent-Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the award. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers of the lorry and appellant-Transport Corporation bus and fixed the liability 50% each and he further submitted 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. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/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 the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. P.W.1-Chandiran, the husband of the deceased was examined . On the side of the claimants, Ex.P1 to P3 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Report. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1-Kannan, the driver of the bus was examined and marked Ex.R1, the Insurance Policy relating to the fifth respondents lorry. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry alone and the whole liability would be fixed only on the lorry driver and the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of R.W.1, who is the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation. P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased also travelled along with the deceased in the bus. In his evidence, he has stated that both the vehicles came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against each other and therefore, the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, in which, it is stated that both the vehicles collided and caused the accident. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, in which, it is stated that both the vehicles collided and caused the accident. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and Exs.P1 and P2, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers and fixed the negligence equally. The find given by the Tribunal is based on valid material evidence and evidence and the same is confirmed. 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. 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. 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 dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have live or the dependents 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 dependents, 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 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. 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. 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..... 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 dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier" (emphasis supplied) 9. 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 dependents 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 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 dependent 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 dependents 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 dependent 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. 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 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 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.” 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-Parvathy was aged about 38 years. She was working as coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-p.m.. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Report, in which, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 38 years old. Hence, the Tribunal taken the age of the deceased at 38 years. Though P.W.1-the husband deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-p.m., no proof was filed by the claimants to substantiate the same. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Report, in which, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 38 years old. Hence, the Tribunal taken the age of the deceased at 38 years. Though P.W.1-the husband deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-p.m., no proof was filed by the claimants to substantiate the same. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- p.m. and determined the annual income at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500/-x 12). Out of the said sum of Rs.18,000/-, if 1/3rd sum of Rs.6,000/-is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.18,000/- - Rs.6,000/-) taken as annual contribution of the deceased to her family. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 38 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier "18" and determined the loss of income at Rs.2,16,000/-. It is also seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium and transport expenses. In view of the above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. After taking into consideration the three daughters were lost their mother, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 12% p.a. The accident occurred on 26.11.1997. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that time, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The finding of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. There is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. It is in accordance with law and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 10. The appellant-Transport Corporation stated that they have already deposited 50% of the award amount as per order dated 20.02.2002. Out of the said amount, the claimants also permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount as per order dated 26.04.2002. It is represented that the fourth respondent has become major. 10. The appellant-Transport Corporation stated that they have already deposited 50% of the award amount as per order dated 20.02.2002. Out of the said amount, the claimants also permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount as per order dated 26.04.2002. It is represented that the fourth respondent has become major. Under these circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance award amount, less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.