Judgment :- 1. Since both the appeals arising out of the common accident, by consent, both the appeals taken up together and disposed of by this common Judgment at the admission stage. 2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant-Transport Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.916 & 918 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court V, Tirupur. 3. The Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Moorthy in CMA.No.562/2011 and injured Ramasamy in CMA.No.563/2011 met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.08.2006 at about 14 hours. The deceased was the pillion rider and the injured was the rider of the two wheeler. When they were travelling in two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN.36-J-8479 from north to south in Tirupur Avanashi Main Road, at that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0649 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, both of them sustained grievous injuries and immediately the deceased was taken to the G.H. Tirupur, where he died on the same day. In CMA.No.562/2011 the claimants are wife, 2 minor children and parents of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation. In CMA.No.563/2011 the claimant/injured claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation has 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 bus driver or not? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if so, what is the amount? 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 driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.916 of 2006 (CMA No.562 of 2011) and Rs.2,81,180/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition in MCOP No.918 of 2006 (CMA No.563 of 2011). The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals are as under:- MCOP No.916 of 2006 (CMA No.562 of 2011):- Loss of dependency: Rs. 4,32,000/- Loss of consortium: Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals are as under:- MCOP No.916 of 2006 (CMA No.562 of 2011):- Loss of dependency: Rs. 4,32,000/- Loss of consortium: Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs. 3,000/- Loss of love and affection to the minor daughters: Rs. 30,000/- Loss of love and affection to the parents: Rs. 10,000/- ------------------ Total Rs. 4,95,000/- ------------------- MCOP No.918 of 2006 (CMA No.563 of 2011):- Loss of earnings: Rs. 2,01,600/-Medical expenses: Rs. 55,080/-Pain and sufferings: Rs. 15,000/-Extra nourishment: Rs. 3,000/-Transport Expenses: Rs. 1,500/-Loss of income during the treatment period: Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total Rs. 2,81,180/- ------------------- Aggrieved by the awards, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeals. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation in both these appeals. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the learned counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. The wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the eyewitness to the accident. P.W.3-Ramasamy, who is the injured/claimant in CMA.No.563/2011. One Rajan @ Chinnarasu, who is the building contractor, was examined as P.W.4. Dr.Senthilkumar was examined as P.W.5. Ex.A.1 is the copy of printed FIR in 797/06 in Anupperpalayam Police Station. Ex.A.2 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.3 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.A.4 is the Death certificate. Ex.A.5 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.A.6 (series) is the discharge summaries of P.W.2. Ex.A.7(series) is the Medical bills of P.W.2. Ex.A.9 is the x-ray. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked. 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. Ex.A.7(series) is the Medical bills of P.W.2. Ex.A.9 is the x-ray. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked. 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. It is a question of fact and the same is confirmed. 7. 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) 8. In the case of SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMED JAMEEL AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, the Apex Court has held as follows: "13. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining “the amount of compensation which appears to be just”. However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. 14. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 15. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p.181, para 5) “5. … The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing’. … The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing’. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the ‘law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales’.” At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 18. The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependant came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus: (AIR p.1) “In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained.” 19. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.” 20. Thus, for arriving at a just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalising it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue." After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. 9. CMA No.562 of 2011 (MCOP No.916 of 2006):- At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years. Ex.A.3 is the Post mortem certificate. Ex.A.4 is the Death certificate, in which it is stated that the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 29 years at the time of the accident. Ex.A.3 is the Post mortem certificate. Ex.A.4 is the Death certificate, in which it is stated that the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 29 years at the time of the accident. In the evidence of P.W.1, she has stated that the deceased was working as a Mason under Rajan Contractor, Pooluvapatti and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Though PW4-Rajan @ Chinnarasu, Building Contractor was also deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, no documentary evidence has been filed to prove the same. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and out of the said sum, 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance sum of Rs.2,000/- was taken as the monthly contribution and arrived at the annual contribution at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2000/- x 12). Considering the age of the deceased as 29 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18' as per the Schedule II and awarded a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 18) towards loss of dependency. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age of the deceased and the monthly income and also correct in adopting the multiplier of 18'. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of the wife was 25 years at the time of the accident, who lost her husband, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses, which is also reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Considering the age of the two minor daughters as 7 and 3 years respectively at the time of the accident, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable, since the daughters have lost the love of their father. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection, to the claimants 4 and 5, who lost their son. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection, to the claimants 4 and 5, who lost their son. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident and the date of award, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. There is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. It is not a fit case for admission and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 10. Under these circumstances, the appellant-Transport Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.4,95,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their shares, as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount if any already withdrawn, by making proper application. The share in respect of the minors (2nd & 3rd respondents) is concerned, the award amount shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they attain majority and the mother of the minors also permitted to withdraw the accrued interest thereon once in three months on making proper application. 11. CMA No.563 of 2011 (MCOP No.918 of 2006 ):- The respondent/claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. In his evidence, it is stated that he is a Mason in Rajan Contractor, Pooluvapatti and was earning Rs.6000/- per month. 11. CMA No.563 of 2011 (MCOP No.918 of 2006 ):- The respondent/claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. In his evidence, it is stated that he is a Mason in Rajan Contractor, Pooluvapatti and was earning Rs.6000/- per month. Further, in his evidence, it is stated that only the driver of the bus has caused the accident and the case has been registered by Anuperpalayam Police in Crime No.797 of 2008 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. Due to the accident he sustained pelvis fracture, right thigh fracture and injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was taken to the Revathi Hospital, Tirupur and C.M.C.H., Coimbatore and Rex Hospital. Due to the injury sustained, he is unable to do h is normal work as before. P.W.5-is the Dr.Senthilkumar, who is Ortho Surgeon working in C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore has examined the claimant on 04.11.2008. In his evidence also it is stated that there is a fracture as stated above and restricted movements of right hand index finger, reduced muscle power in both the hip and finger and he is unable to work as before. He fixed the disability at 43.56% and Ex.P.8 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.9 is the X-ray. The Tribunal, after considering the above oral and documentary evidence, was of the view that the disability fixed by the doctor is excessive and it reduced to 35%. The Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as monthly income of the injured. After considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.3000 x 12 x 16 x 35/100). The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury. There is no concrete or substantial evidence on record to show that the percentage of the disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier method. In the present case, the method to be adopted is percentage method. The doctor fixed the disability at 43.56%. The Tribunal ought not to have reduced the same to 35%. Therefore, this Court fixes the disability at 45% in this case. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. In the present case, the method to be adopted is percentage method. The doctor fixed the disability at 43.56%. The Tribunal ought not to have reduced the same to 35%. Therefore, this Court fixes the disability at 45% in this case. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.2000/- is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss due to 45% disability works out to Rs.90,000/- as against Rs.2,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.55,080/- towards medical expenses. Ex.A.7 is the series of medical bills. There is no dispute that he was admitted in Rex Hospital, Coimbatore and he was treated there as in-patient for 10 days and continuing the treatment. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,500/- towards transport expenses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses as against Rs.3,000 and Rs.1,500/- respectively awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000 towards pain and sufferings. After considering the nature of injuries sustained and he was taken treatment in various hospitals, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. He was taking treatment in the hospital for number of days and after discharge he is unable to do the wok as before. After considering the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and the period of treatment, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenity. Therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenity. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident and the date of award, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident and the date of award, the 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 due to 45% disability: Rs. 90,000/- Medical expenses: Rs.55,080/- Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/- Extra Nourishment: Rs. 10,000/- Transport expenses: Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period : Rs. 18,000/- Loss of amenities: Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total Rs.2,08,080/- ----------------- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,08,080/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the compensation of Rs.2,81,180/- awarded by the Tribunal. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12. Under these circumstances, the appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.2,08,080/- (Rupees Two lakhs eight thousand and eighty only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, after adjusting the amount if any already withdrawn, on making proper application.