Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the claimant against award dated 10.02.2004 made in MCOP No.370 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vellore District. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Ramesh met with a Motor Traffic Accident on 06.05.2003 at about 9.30am. The said deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-T-5976 along with his brother Sudhakar as Pillion rider. They were proceeding on East Costal Road near Thiruvidanthai Cross Road. At that time a Jeep bearing Registration No.TAH 187 belonging to the appellant-Director of Agriculture, Kanchipuram came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the motor cycle. Due to the same, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The brother of the deceased, Sudhakar also sustained grievous Injuries. Immediately, deceased Ramesh was taken to Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, but he died there. The claimants are father, mother and two brothers of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant herein 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 jeep belonging to the appellant? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation. If so, what is the amount they are entitled to? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep belonging to the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,67,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of dependency Rs. 6,62,400/- Loss of estate and Love and affection Rs. 4,600/- Total...Rs. 6,67,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellants herein have filed the present appeal. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought not have adopted the multiplier of 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the claimant for the purpose of adopting the multiplier. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought not have adopted the multiplier of 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the claimant for the purpose of adopting the multiplier. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. On the side of the appellant, RW1-Manoharan, who is the driver of the Jeep was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 is the brother of the deceased. PW3 is the co-employee of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P5 is the Original passport of the deceased. Ex.P6 is the Electrical B License of the deceased. Ex.P7 is the original Transfer certificate of the deceased. Ex.P8 is the Original Provisional certificate of the deceased. Ex.P9 is the Lawyer Notice. Ex.P10 is the Acknowledgment. Ex.P11 is the Acknowledgement. Ex.P12 is the Reply Notice dated 30.07.2003. Ex.P13 is the Salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.P14 is the Provisional National Trade certificate. Ex.P15 is the Original Driving license of the deceased. Ex.P16 is the xerox copy of the driving license. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and awarded compensation. It is a question of fact and 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 had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and awarded compensation. It is a question of fact and 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 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 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. 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. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as a Computer Technician in M/s.Bee Gee Systems Computer Hardware Engineering, Chennai. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. Further the deceased has also undergone training for Electrical Works and has also obtained Electrical B License. Ex.P6 is the certificate of Electrical B license of the deceased. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, it is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. Further the deceased has also undergone training for Electrical Works and has also obtained Electrical B License. Ex.P6 is the certificate of Electrical B license of the deceased. The deceased was a B.A. Graduate and Ex.P8 is the Provisional Certificate. Ex.P13 is the Salary certificate given by the employer of the deceased. P.W.3 is the co-employee of the deceased and in his evidence, he has stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.4,600/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary at Rs.4,600/- and determined the annual income at Rs.55,200/-. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e, 26 years old, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and determined the loss of income at Rs.9,93,600/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3 of Rs.3,31,200/-was deducted towards personal expenses and determined the loss of income at Rs.6,62,400/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellent vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in adopting multiplier 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased. The deceased was only a bachelor and the claimants age should be taken into account. In the present case, the age of the mother is 41 years and therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 15. In support of his contention, he relied on a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Sathvir Singh, reported in 2008 ACJ 814 , wherein, it is held that only the age of the parents should be considered for the purpose of adopting the multiplier. Even in the present case, the age of the mother is 41 years and therefore the correct multiplier to be adopted is 15. As there is no dispute in the salary of the deceased, the loss of income is determined as follows: Rs.55,200/- x 15 = Rs.8,28,000/- Out of the said sum, 1/3 of Rs.2,76,000/-is deducted towards personal expenses and the balance sum of Rs.5,52,000/-is taken as the annual contribution of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded a meagre sum of Rs.4,600/-towards loss of estate and love and affection. It is very low and meagre. The Tribunal has also awarded a meagre sum of Rs.4,600/-towards loss of estate and love and affection. It is very low and meagre. After taking into consideration that the parents have lost their eldest son and also lost the love of a brother, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- (i.e. Rs.5,000/-x 4) towards loss of love and affection as against Rs.4,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards future prospects on the basis of the age of the deceased, who definitely would be promoted and would be earning more, if he was alive. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards future prospects. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards Transport and funeral expenses. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-each, towards Transport and funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9%, which is reasonable after taking into consideration the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during that period. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 5,52,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Future prospects Rs. 30,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 6,12,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.6,12,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition as against Rs.6,67,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that they have already deposited the entire award amount with interest and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.6,12,000/-, less the award amount already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.