Judgment :- 1. The appeals filed by the Transport corporation against the award dated 16.02.2001 made in M.C.O.P Nos.421 and 412 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Virudhachalam. Both the appeals have been filed arising out of the same accident. The Tribunal has also passed the common order in M.C.O.P Nos.421 and 412 of 1999. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: In both the C.M.A. the deceased Ramalingam and Arumugam were going in a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 45 X 697. The deceased Ramalingam was the rider of the motor cycle and the deceased Arumugam was the pillion rider of the motor cycle. Both of them met with motor vehicle accident on 27.06.1999 at about 12.25 hours. While they were going from Pennadam to Vridhachalam, they stopped the motor cycle at Murugankudi village, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN 32 N 980 belonging to the appellant-Transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to the same, both of them sustained grievous injuries and the pillion rider Arumugam was died on his way to the hospital. Later, Ramalingam was died during treatment in Government Hospital, Chennai. In C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002, the claimants are wife, son, four minor children, mother, brother and sister of the deceased Ramalingam. They claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. In C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002, the claimants are wife, son and daughter of the deceased Arumugam. They claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the transport corporation bus or not? 2. Whether the transport corporation is liable to pay compensation? 3. What is the compensation, the claimants are entitled to in both these cases? 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 and awarded compensation of Rs.5,97,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum in C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002 and Rs.3,99,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum in C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002 from the date of claim. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Insurance company has filed the present appeals. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Insurance company has filed the present appeals. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance in both the cases, vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrongly holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Trasport corporation bus and further contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without basis and justification. Further, the Tribunal is wrongly adopted the multiplier in both these cases and also wrongly awarded excessive interest. Therefore, the order 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 in both these cases submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation is based on valid materials and evidence and it is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1-Devendran, who is the driver of the transport corporation bus was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. The wife of the deceased Ramalingam was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Arumugam was also examined. P.W.3 is one Devendran, who is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.P1 dated 27.06.1999 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 28.06.1999 is the copy of the motor vehicle inspectors report, Ex.P3 dated 30.06.1999 copy of post mortem certificate of the deceased Ramalingam, Ex.P4 dated 27.06.1999 copy of post mortem certificate of the deceased Arumugam were marked. After considering the above 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 and awarded compensation, it is a question of fact. Therefore, the same is confirmed. 6. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. After considering the above 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 and awarded compensation, it is a question of fact. 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. In C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002 the deceased Ramalingam was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident and was working as a cooly and earned Rs.5,000/- per month. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Ramalingam in her evidence has stated that after the accident the deceased was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Virudhachalam. Later, he was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital, and he died during treatment in Government Hospital, Chennai. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Ramalingam in her evidence has stated that after the accident the deceased was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Virudhachalam. Later, he was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital, and he died during treatment in Government Hospital, Chennai. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.125/- per day and computed the monthly income at Rs.3,750/- and determined the annual income at Rs.4,5000/-. Out of the said sum 1/3 of Rs.15,000/-was deducted towards personal expenses and the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- taken as the annual contribution of the deceased to the family. After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 16 and determined the loss of income at Rs.4,80,000 (Rs.30,000x16). P.W.1. in her evidence has stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years. In respect of the age group between 41 and 45 years the appropriate multiplier is 14 as per the Supreme Court judgment in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997. Following the above judgment, the correct multiplier should be adopted in the present case is 14. If multiplier 14 is applied, the loss of income works out to Rs.4,20,000/-(Rs.30,000x14). Therefore, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002 are entitled to Rs.4,20,000/-towards loss of income as against Rs.4,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-for loss of consortium. After taking into consideration of the age of the widow i.e., 34 years at the time of the accident, the award amount is reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Minor children have lost the love and affection of the father and the mother also lost the son and the brother and sister lost the deceased. After taking into consideration of the above, the award amount towards loss of love and affection is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-for funeral expenses which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. There is no dispute that the deceased before his death was taken treatment in various hospitals. After taking into consideration of the same, the award amount towards transportation is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. There is no dispute that the deceased before his death was taken treatment in various hospitals. After taking into consideration of the same, the award amount towards transportation is reasonable and 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, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under. Loss of income = Rs.4,20,000/-Loss of consortium = Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection = Rs. 80,000/-Transportation = Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/- ------------------Total = Rs.5,37,000/- ------------------ 9. In the result, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002 are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.5,37,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum as against Rs.5,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is stated by the appellant-Transport corporation that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the Court order dated 09.09.2002. The claimants also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn on making proper application. In respect of the minor share is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the minor share in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority. The mother of the minor i.e., 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.1649 of 2002 is permitted to withdraw the interest accruing on the minor share once in six months, on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 10. In C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002, the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and was working as a cooly and earned Rs.6,000/- per month. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Arumugam. Ex.P4 is the post mortem certificate of the deceased Arumugam in which, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 55 years and computed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.48,000/-. Ex.P4 is the post mortem certificate of the deceased Arumugam in which, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 55 years and computed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.48,000/-. Out of the said sum, 1/3 of Rs.16,000/- was deducted towards personal expenses and the balance amount of Rs.32,000/- taken as the annual contribution of the deceased to the family. After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased at 55 years, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ‘11’ and determined the loss of income at Rs.3,52,000/- (Rs.32,000x11). The counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport corporation contended that the correct multiplier should be adopted in this case is ‘10’ as per the Supreme Court judgment cited supra. If multiplier ‘10’ adopted, the loss of income is works out to Rs.3,20,000/- (Rs.32,000x10). Therefore, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002 are entitled to Rs.3,20,000/- for loss of income as against Rs.3,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium. After taking into consideration of the age of the widow i.e., 45 years, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The son and daughter have lost the love and affection of the father. After taking into consideration of the above, the award amount is reasonable and therefore the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transportation and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses which are reasonable and therefore, the same are confirmed. The Tribunal awarded interest rate at 12%. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest, it is reasonable to award interest rate at 9% per annum. The modified amount of the compensation are as under. Loss of income = Rs.3,20,000/- Loss of consortium = Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection = Rs. 20,000/- Transportation = Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/- ------------------- Total = Rs.3,67,000/- ------------------- 11. In the result, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002 are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as against Rs.3,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection = Rs. 20,000/- Transportation = Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/- ------------------- Total = Rs.3,67,000/- ------------------- 11. In the result, the claimants in C.M.A.No.1650 of 2002 are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as against Rs.3,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that they have deposited the entire award amount as per the Court order dated 09.09.2002. The claimants also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, 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. 12. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of. No costs.