Judgment :- 1. The appeal is filed by the Transport corporation against the award dated 09.06.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.340 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Udumelpet. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant one Meenakshi Sundaram met with motor vehicle accident on 16.01.1997 at about 07.20 P.M. While the deceased along with his wife and his brother-in-law were standing at the Theni bus stand for the purpose of going to Cumbum, a bus bearing registration No.TN 57-N-0475 belonging to the appellant-Transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the deceased and due to the same, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Theni. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.18,60,000/-later, it was restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus or not? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport corporation and awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,452/- ith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under: Loss of income = Rs.2,80,000/- Loss of love and affection = Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/- Medical expenses = Rs.1,18,452/- Total = Rs.4,40,452/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport corporation contended that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the injured died because of the accident. The date of accident is 16.01.1997, the said injured died on 26.03.1999 therefore, vehemently submitted that the death is not occurred due to the injury sustained in the accident and further vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without any basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and came to the right conclusion that the deceased was died because of the injury sustained in the accident and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1, one Appar was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. The wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. PW2 is one Venkatachalam, who is the eyewitness to the accident. PW3 is Dr.Sekar. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, Ex.P3 to P5-medical bills, Ex.P6-death certificate, Ex.P7-legal heir certificate, Ex.P8 and P9-medical bills, Ex.P10 to 12-discharge summary. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport corporation is that the death of the deceased was not occurred due to the injury sustained in the accident. P.W.1. is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence, it is stated that the deceased was admitted in Theni Government Hospital later, he was referred to Madurai Rajaji Hospital. Further, he was taken treatment in Vinayaga hospital, Udumalpet and later, he was referred to Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital, Coimbatore. He was continuously taking treatment in various hospitals and there is no dispute regarding the same. P.W.2 is the eye-witness to the accident. In his evidence, it is stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport corporation. Ex.P3, to P5, P8, and P9 are the series of medical bills given by Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital, Coimbatore. Ex.P6 is the death certificate. Ex.P10 to 12 discharge summary given by K.G. Hospital in which, it is stated that the deceased was taken treatment in the said hospital. P.W.3 is Dr.Sekar. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was taking treatment from 19.03.1997 to 18.04.1997 as outpatient and again he was taken treatment from 22.03.1990 to 26.03.1999. Ex.P6 is the death certificate. Ex.P10 to 12 discharge summary given by K.G. Hospital in which, it is stated that the deceased was taken treatment in the said hospital. P.W.3 is Dr.Sekar. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was taking treatment from 19.03.1997 to 18.04.1997 as outpatient and again he was taken treatment from 22.03.1990 to 26.03.1999. There is no dispute that he was continuously taking treatment because of the injury sustained in the accident. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport corporation and also died because of the injury sustained in the accident and it is a question of fact, based on valid materials and evidence. Therefore, the same is confirmed. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 8. The deceased was 44 years old at the time of the accident. He was running provisional stores and earned Rs.5,000/- per month. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 47 years. There is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased earned Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident. He was running provisional stores and earned Rs.5,000/- per month. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 47 years. There is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased earned Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,700/- and after deducting 1/3 of Rs.900/- towards personal expenses, determined the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.1800/-. The annual contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.21,600/- (Rs.1,800x12). After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased based on the discharge summary, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier ‘13’ and determined the loss of income at Rs.2,80,000/-. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,700/- which is excessive. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to fix the monthly income at Rs.2,325/- and after deducting 1/3 of Rs.775/- towards personal expenses Rs.1,550/- is taken as the monthly contribution by the deceased to the family. The annual contribution is works out to Rs.18,600(Rs.1,550x12) and after applying multiplier of ‘13’, the loss of income works out to Rs.2,41,800/- (18,600x13) as against Rs.2,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.40,000/-for loss of love and affection. The age of the widow is 42 years at the time of the accident. The son and daughter have lost the love and affection of the father and the mother also lost the son. After taking into consideration of the same, the award amount Rs.40,000/- is reasonable and therefore the same is confirmed, The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,452/-towards medical expenses Ex.P.3 to P5, P8 and P9 are the series of medical bills. After taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,452/-under that head. There is no dispute that the deceased before his death was taking treatment in various hospitals and it is an actual expenditure. Therefore the award towards medical expenses is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses which is reasonable therefore, the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 9%. Therefore the award towards medical expenses is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses which is reasonable therefore, the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 9%. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under: Loss of income = Rs.2,41,800/- Loss of love and affection = Rs. 40,000/- Medical expenses = Rs.1,18,452/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/-Total = Rs.4,02,252/- 9. In the result, the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.4,02,252/-with interest @ 9% per annum as against Rs.4,40,452/-awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant-Transport corporation stated that they have deposited the entire award amount with interest @9% as per the Court order dated 20.09.2009. Under these circumstances, the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw her share, less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. In respect of the other claimants i.e., son and daughter they are also now become major. Therefore, they are permitted to withdraw their share, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. The appellant-Transport corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 10. With the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.