Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.3986/1998 dated 19.06.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Session Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Chennai-1. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased-Vijayarangan met with motor vehicle accident on 19.04.1998 at about 02.40 p.m. While the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration no.TN.25 Y 1967, in Vandavasi - Kancheepuram road, a bus bearing registration no.TN.32 N 0312 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, which came from opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. In whose negligence, the accident had occurred? Whether the claimants are entitled to the 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 driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,46,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The details of the compensation are as under: for loss of income: Rs.8,16,000/- for funeral expenses: Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium: Rs. 10,000/- for love and affection: Rs. 15,000/- Totally: Rs.8,46,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation and vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded an excess and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification. He further contended that the Tribunal is erred in awarding a sum of Rs.8,16,000/-for loss of income, without any valid material and evidence, and 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 respondents/claimants 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants 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 and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 and 2, were examined and documents Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2, Jayaraman is an eye witness to the accident. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is Xerox copy of the Postmortem certificate, Ex.P.3 is Legal heir certificate, Ex.P.4 is the Adangal Accounts, Ex.P.5 is the Document relating to the membership in the Sugar Cane Co-operative Society, Ex.P.6 is the receipt for receiving the sugarcane, Ex.P.7 is the Document showing his selection as the President, Ex.P.8 is the document showing the repairs done to the motor cycle. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no documents were marked on their side to support their claim. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident 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. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 . 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 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. 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.” 28. 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 Vijayarangan was aged about 35 years. P.W.1, in her evidence has stated that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years. Ex.P.2, copy of the post-mortem report shows that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 and hence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 35 years. P.W.1, in her evidence has stated that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years. Ex.P.2, copy of the post-mortem report shows that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 and hence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 35 years. Further, P.W.1, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and he was an agriculturist and also Contractor in a Industrial Panchayat Board and he was also the President of the Panchayat Board. Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 indicate that the deceased was an agriculturist. But there is no concrete evidence available on record to show that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and determined his annual income at Rs.72,000/-. After deducting 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards personal expenses, the Tribunal taken the balance sum of Rs.48,000/- as the contribution to the family of the deceased. Further, by applying the multiplier of 17, the Tribunal has determined the loss of income at Rs.8,16,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal, when there is no concrete evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-per month, had wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was the President of the Panchayat Board and also he was an Industrial Panchayat Board Contractor and was also deriving income from agricultural land. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as against the sum of Rs.6,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses. There are four family members depending on him. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as against the sum of Rs.6,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses. There are four family members depending on him. Therefore, deducting 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses is excessive and following the principles enuntiated in the judgment reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another wherein it has been held that if the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and paragraph 14 reads as under: "14.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards Personal and Living Expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six." In the present case as the number of dependant family member is 4, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. From the salary of Rs.5,000/-if 1/4th of Rs.1,250/- is deducted the balance amount of Rs.3,750/- is taken as his monthly contribution to the family. Hence, the annual income of the petitioner works out to Rs.45,000/-(Rs.3,750/- X 12). The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17. As per the schedule, the Tribunal is correct in adopting the multiplier of 17 after taking into consideration the age of the deceased. Hence, adopting the multiplier of 17, the award for loss of income works out to Rs.7,65,000/- (Rs.3,750/-X 12 X 17). Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.7,65,000/-towards loss of income as against the sum of Rs.8,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. It is a very reasonable amount and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.7,65,000/-towards loss of income as against the sum of Rs.8,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. It is a very reasonable amount and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of the widow was 29 years at the time of the accident, the amount awarded under the head is very low and hence a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded as against the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the two minor children and mother. It is very low and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-under this head as against the sum of Rs.15,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards transport charges. Hence, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. The date of accident is 21.09.2002. Taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The details of the compensation are as under: for loss of income: Rs.7,65,000/- for loss of consortium: Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection: Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- for transportation charges: Rs. 5,000/- Total amount: Rs.8,10,000/- Therefore the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.8,10,000/-. (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ten Thousand Only) with interest at 9% p.a. as against the sum of Rs.8,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that they have already deposited the entire award amount with interest as per the order of this Court dated 08.11.2005. Under these circumstances, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest at 9% and the claimant/respondent no.1, the wife of the deceased and the 4th respondent, the mother of the deceased are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. In respect of 2nd respondent Minor. Vijayakumar, it was stated that he has become major. Therefore, he is also permitted to withdraw as apportioned by the Tribunal on making proper application. In respect of the share of the 3rd respondent Minor. In respect of 2nd respondent Minor. Vijayakumar, it was stated that he has become major. Therefore, he is also permitted to withdraw as apportioned by the Tribunal on making proper application. In respect of the share of the 3rd respondent Minor. Viknesh Kumar, the same is continued to be in a Nationalised Bank till he attains majority and his mother the 1st respondent, the wife of the deceased, is permitted to withdraw accrued interest thereon once in six months on making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation 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. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.