JUDGMENT :- 1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 22.7.2004 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.229 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee. 2. The Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Kalivela Saroja met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.05.2001 at about 00.15 A.M. The said Saroja and her daughters were travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN.21-N-0569 belonging to the sixth respondent Transport Corporation from Chennai to Nellur. When the bus was nearing Duraivarichathiram on the G.N.T. Road, at that time, a Tata Container Lorry bearing Registration No.H.R. 55/4147 which came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and colluded with each other. Due to the same, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the husband, two daughters and son. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,03,000/- as compensation. The said container lorry was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Both the appellant- Insurance Company as well as the 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 lorry belonging to the appellant-Insurance Company or the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any claim? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and the liability was fixed 50% each on both the vehicles and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,68,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the compensation are as under:- Pecuniary Loss: Rs.2,43,000/- Funeral & Transport Expenses :Rs. 10,000/-Loss of love and affection: Rs. 15,000/- ------------------ Total... Rs. 2,68,000/- --------------- --- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company and the sixth respondent/Transport Corporation have preferred these appeals. The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal with a delay of 2268 days. 3. 10,000/-Loss of love and affection: Rs. 15,000/- ------------------ Total... Rs. 2,68,000/- --------------- --- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company and the sixth respondent/Transport Corporation have preferred these appeals. The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal with a delay of 2268 days. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that both the drivers of the vehicles caused the accident and fixed the liability 50% each on the drivers of the both the vehicles and also contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and therefore, the orders 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 Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicle. It was further contended that it is only the driver of the container lorry who drove the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus, also heavily relying on the evidence of P.W.1, wherein it is stated that, only the driver of the container lorry caused the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire liability on the Insurance Company and hence, the delay in filing this appeal may be condoned and the order 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. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard both the counsel and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimants, the second respondent herein daughter of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, who travelled in the bus as a co-passenger. P.W.2, C.Mani, who is also the co-passenger of the said bus, was examined, he is not related to the deceased. Another daughter of the deceased was also examined as P.W.3, who is also the co-passenger of the bus. Documents Exs.P.1 and P.8 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report. P.W.2, C.Mani, who is also the co-passenger of the said bus, was examined, he is not related to the deceased. Another daughter of the deceased was also examined as P.W.3, who is also the co-passenger of the bus. Documents Exs.P.1 and P.8 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the translated copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.3 is the Postmortem Report. Ex.P.4 is the motor vehicles Inspector's report. Ex.P.5 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is the Legal heirs certificate. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company and the Transport Corporation, one Sridhar, driver of the Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1-Rough sketch ws marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the vehicles and fixed the liability 50% each on both the drivers. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.1, who is also the daughter of the deceased as well as co-passenger in the same bus. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that only the driver of the container lorry came in the wrong side and caused the accident. In the present case, P.W.2 who is neither related to the deceased nor the witnesses has categorically stated that both the drivers of the vehicles caused the accident. Further, P.W.3, one of the daughter of the deceased, who travelled in the same bus , in her evidence has also stated that only the driver of the bus, caused the accident. In this case, the driver of the lorry was died on the spot and the conductor of the bus lodged FIR. Subsequently, investigation was taken by the police and they have examined about 30 witnesses who are all the passengers in the bus and a case has been registered only against the driver of the bus. As per the evidence and the investigation report, it is evident that both the drivers of the vehicles, caused the accident and Ex.P.5 is the charge sheet. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that both the drivers of the vehicles caused the accident. It is a question of fact and the same is confirmed. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that both the drivers of the vehicles caused the accident. It is a question of fact and the same is confirmed. 8. It is also pertinent to note that M.P.No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A.SR.No.2305 of 2011 came up for hearing on 10.01.2011. The matter was argued at length and at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation, the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, the Transport Corporation has filed the present petition for condoning the delay of 2268 days in filing the C.M.A.SR.No.2305 of 2011. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit, this court is not satisfied to condone the delay and hence, M.P.No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A.SR.No.2305 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.2305 of 2011 is also dismissed. 9. 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) 10. 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. 11. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of the accident Ex.P.3 is the Postmortem Certificate in which the age of the deceased was shown at 40 years. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age of the deceased as 40 years. In the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, it is stated that the deceased was engaged in manufacturing candles and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age of the deceased as 40 years. In the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, it is stated that the deceased was engaged in manufacturing candles and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. But there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.1,500/- and determined the annual income at Rs.18,000/-(Rs.1500 x 12). After taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 40 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15' as per the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 15). Out of the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 10% towards her personal expenses and determined the loss of income at Rs.2,43,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the monthly as well as the annual contribution and also rightly adopted the multiplier of 15'. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses and Transport expenses. It is also very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are husband, two daughters and son. They lost the love of the mother. 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 9% 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 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. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 12. It is stated that by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 12. It is stated that by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The sixth respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit their share in the award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the amount has not already been deposited. It is represented that the fourth respondent has attained majority. Hence, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, less the amount if any already withdrawn as apportioned by the Tribunal, on making proper applications.