Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 02.01.2004 made in MCOP No.143 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Udumalaipet. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 08.05.1999 at about 10.40 am, while the deceased Manikandan was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN 58 N 0011 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation from Rajapalayam to Madurai on Srivillipudhur to Madurai Main Road near Lakshmipuram, the driver of the bus the 3rd respondent herein, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the tamarind tree. Due to the said impact, the deceased died on the spot. The claimants are father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.13,03,500/- as compensation, but restricted their claim to Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 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 driver of the bus, which was driven by the third respondent herein? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so how much? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent-driver of the bus, which belonged to the appellant-Transport corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,02,280/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs.2,57,280/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Loss of Expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- Mental agony Rs. 20,000/- Transport Expenses Rs. 1,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total... Rs.3,10,280/- (The total award amount comes to Rs.3,10,280/-, but, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.3,02,280/- only). It is a totalling error. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, and also without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2/claimant 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 claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the respondents RW1-M.K.Durai, was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. PW1-N.Thangavel, is the father of the deceased. PW2-Manivel is an eyewitness to the accident. Ex.P1 is the First Information report. Ex.P2 is the Charge Sheet. Ex.P3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the Postmortem Report. Ex.P5 is the Xerox copy of the Ration Card. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows: "7. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 15. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p.181, para 5) “5. … The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing’. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the ‘law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales’.” At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 18. The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependant came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus: (AIR p.1) “In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. 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. Since in the present case there is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue." After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. 8. At the time of the accident, the deceased Manikandan was aged about 16 years. PW1, the father of the deceased deposed that his son was doing vegetable business and was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried. 8. At the time of the accident, the deceased Manikandan was aged about 16 years. PW1, the father of the deceased deposed that his son was doing vegetable business and was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs.2,000/- per month and has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and determined the annual income at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12). Out of the said sum, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 of Rs.8,000/- (Rs.24,000 x 1/3) towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.16,000/- as the annual contribution of the deceased to his family. The age of the claimants, viz., father was 42 years and the mother was 35 years. After taking into consideration the age of the claimants, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.2,57,280/- (Rs.16,080/- x 16). There is no dispute regarding the monthly as well as annual income fixed by the Tribunal. The claimants are father and mother and they lost their son. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very low and it is reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.2,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of Love and affection. Considering the facts, parents lost their son and the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- under this head as against Rs.20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards Loss of Expectation of life which I feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards Transport Expenses, which is very low and it is reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.1,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards Mental agony. After awarding the amount towards loss of Love and affection, the amount awarded towards Mental agony is unwarranted and therefore, the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of Claim Petition. The accident occurred on 08.05.1999. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards Mental agony. After awarding the amount towards loss of Love and affection, the amount awarded towards Mental agony is unwarranted and therefore, the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of Claim Petition. The accident occurred on 08.05.1999. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs.2,57,280/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- Loss of Expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,07,280/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,07,280/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of Claim Petition as against the compensation of Rs.3,10,280/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,10,280/-. But, by mistake awarded a sum of Rs.3,02,280/-due to totalling error. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation fairly stated that the appellant has deposited only a sum of Rs.3,02,280/-with interest and costs. No steps were taken to rectify the totalling error. Therefore, in view of the modification of the compensation determined above, the appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the difference amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.3,07,280-Rs.3,02,280) with in a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant Transport Corporation has deposited the award amount of Rs.3,02,280/- as per order of this Court dated 24.06.2005 and the claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited as per order dated 29.03.2006. In these circumstances, the claimants are entitled to the modified award amount. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent-father of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount of her share as well as the share of her husband, who is the deceased 1st respondent, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount of her share as well as the share of her husband, who is the deceased 1st respondent, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. Further in respect of the earlier direction in respect of difference amount of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, on making proper application. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.