Judgment :- 1. The appeals are preferred by the claimants against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruppur in M.C.O.P. Nos.393 of 2000 and 23 of 2000 dated 30.10.2003. 2. The brief facts arose in both CMA Nos.2895 and 2896 of 2004 in the same accident are as follows: On 08.10.1999 at about 09.30 p.m. the deceased Manikandaprabhu (CMA. No.2895 of 2004) and injured-claimant Anbukarasi (CMA. No.2896 of 2004) met with motor vehicle accident. The deceased as well as injured-claimant were in front of the Balamurugan Company, Thattan Thottam, Tiruppur. At that time, a van bearing Registration No.TN-41-C-0477 came towards west driven by the first respondent-driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against them. Due to the same, the deceased-Manikandaprabhu died on the spot and the injured-Anbukarasi sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the injured admitted in Tiruppur Government Hospital. The claimants are the mother and father in CMA. No.2895 of 2004 and claimed a sum of Rs.8,0,000/-. In CMA. No.2896 of 2004 the injured is the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The third respondent-Insurance Company 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 van driver or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" 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 van driver and awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/-with interest at 9% per annum in CMA. No.2895 of 2004 and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-with interest at 9% per annum in CMA. No.2896 of 2004 and the details of the same are as under:- In CMA. No.2896 of 2004 Loss of permanent disability Rs.40,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Los of income Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.50,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 is the father of the deceased. PW3 is the doctor Mohammed Subbain. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the medical report of Anbukarasi. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Anbukarasi. Ex.P4 is the medical chits. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of Post Mortem report. Ex.P6 is the death certificate of Manikanda Prabhu. Ex.P7 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P8 is the transfer certificate. Ex.P9 is the X-ray. Ex.P10 is the disability certificate of Anbukarasi. 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 van and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is hereby 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. 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 Thomas2, 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. Veluswami4, 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. CMA. No.2895 of 2004: At the time of the accident, the deceased was a minor aged about 11 years. He was studying in 6th standard in Tiruppur. In the case of R.K. Malik and another vs Kiran Pal and others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC593 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has considered the scope of the death of the children and fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and in para 16 is held as follows: "16. Then, how does one calculate pecuniary compensation for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, grant parents, etc. in the case of non-working student? Under the second schedule of the act in case of a non earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs.15,000/-per annum. The second schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163-A of the act. The second schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the second schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. (see Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2004(1) TN MAC 549 (SC): 2003 (3) SCC 148 ; United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 (6) SCC 281 and UP State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4) SCC 362 )" The Tribunal without considering the principles of assessment awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Following the above said judgment, Rs.15,000/-is fixed as annual income. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4) SCC 362 )" The Tribunal without considering the principles of assessment awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Following the above said judgment, Rs.15,000/-is fixed as annual income. Out of the said sum if 1/3rd of Rs.5,000/-is deducted towards personal expenses, the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-would be the annual income of the deceased. The age of the mother was 38 years at the time of the accident. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) ACJ 1298, in para 21 the Apex Court held as follows: "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMAL THOMAS (SUPRA), U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOK CHANDRA (SUPRA) AND NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CHARLIE (SUPRA), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." Following the principle enunciated in the said judgment, if the age of the mother is taken into consideration for adopting the proper multiplier for the age group of 35 to 40, the multiplier to be adopted in this case is 15 and the loss of income works out to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.10000x15). The parents lost their only son. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award Rs.40,000/-towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport charges. Considering the date of the accident i.e. on 08.10.1999 and the date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified compensation as per the above discussion are as follows: Loss of income Rs.1,50,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. Considering the date of the accident i.e. on 08.10.1999 and the date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified compensation as per the above discussion are as follows: Loss of income Rs.1,50,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000 Total Rs.2,00,000/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 50,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.1,50,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest of 7.5% from the date of the petition. 9. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest of 7.5% within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount on making proper application. 10. CMA. No.2896 of 2004: At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 38 years. She was working as a Coolie. In her evidence, she has stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The driver of the van was charge sheeted in Crime No.642 of 1999 of South Police Station, Tiruppur under Section 279, 377, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Due to the accident, she sustained fracture in her right thigh and several injuries all over the body. She was admitted in the Tirupur Government Hospital on 08.10.1999 and later she was admitted at Government Hospital Thanjavur. PW3 is the doctor, who examined the injured, has determined the disability at 40%. Ex.P10 is the disability certificate. PW3 in his evidence also stated that due to the injury she is unable to do the work as before. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate given by the Government Hospital. The claimant claimed that she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but no document was produced to substantiate her income. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,100/-and also accepted the disability determined by the Doctor at 40%. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/-towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts and Rs.1,000/- towards per percentage of disability. If Rs.1,000/- is awarded for 1% disability for 40% disability, the award works out to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,100/-and also accepted the disability determined by the Doctor at 40%. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/-towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts and Rs.1,000/- towards per percentage of disability. If Rs.1,000/- is awarded for 1% disability for 40% disability, the award works out to Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and sufferings. The claimant took treatment at Government Hospital, Tiruppur and Thanjavur Government Hospital. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate and Ex.P10 is the disability certificate. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-under this head as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period. The claimant took treatment for a period of three months. Considering the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- under the head as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards Transport charges, loss of amenities and extra nourishment. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards transport charges, another Rs.2,500/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the date of the accident i.e. on 08.10.1999 and the date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. As per the above discussion, the modified compensation are as follows: Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.40,000/- Transport charges Rs. 2,500/- Extra nourishment Rs. 2,500/- Loss of income during the treatment period Rs. 7,500/- Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.15,000 Total Rs.77,500/- Less: Amount already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.50,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.27,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 11. The third respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 12. 11. The third respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 12. With the above modifications, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No costs.