JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission. 2. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 and made in MCOP No.836 of 2009 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Murugan met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.08.2009 at about 3.30 p.m. He was a passenger in the bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-2022 belonging to the appellant- Transport Corporation from Salem to Hosur. While the bus was proceeding in Krishnagiri – Hosur Road, near Sundagiri M.M. Petrol Bunk, the driver of the bus road the bus in a rash and negligent manner and lost the control and hit the back side of the trailer lorry bearing registration No.HR-47-A-6610. Due to the accident, the front portion of the bus got fully damaged and the deceased Murugan, bus driver, conductor and other six male passengers were died on the spot. The claimants are wife, two minor daughters and parents and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation has resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's vehicle? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get the compensation as claimed in the petition from the appellant? 3. To what other relief is entitled to? 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 appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,83,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs.6,48,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection(each Rs.5000) Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total... Rs.6,83,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection(each Rs.5000) Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total... Rs.6,83,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that it is only the driver of the bus who caused the accident and the length of the trailer is more than the permissible limit and therefore it is only the driver of the trailer caused the accident and further contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any 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. 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. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimants, the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1. PW2-one Muthaluchetty, the eye witness to the occurrence was also examined. Documents Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the FIR. Ex.A2 is the copy of the Postmortem certificate. Exs.A3 & A4 are copies of sale deed in favour of the deceased. Ex.A5 is the income certificate of deceased issued by Deputy Tahsildar. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, after considering the oral evidence of PW2 who is the eye witness of the accident and also Ex.A1, FIR in which it is stated that it is only the driver of the appellant – Transport Corporation caused the accident and relying upon the 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 appellant-Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. 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. 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. 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. 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..... 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. 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 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. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained.” 19. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.” 20. Thus, for arriving at a just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalising it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. 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. At the time of the accident, the deceased-Murugan was aged about 27 years. In the evidene of PW1, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 27 years and Ex.A2 is the Postmortem Certificate in which also, the age of the deceased was stated as 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the tribunal has correctly fixed the age of the deceased at 27 years at the time of accident. Even though in the evidence of PW1 it is stated that the deceased was Mason and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, no document has been produced to substantiate the claim. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day for a period of 20 days in a month and determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and the annual income at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12). Out of the said sum of Rs.48,000/-, the Tribunal had deducted 1/4th, i.e. Rs.12,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 1/4) towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance amount of Rs.36,000/- was taken as the annual contribution of the deceased to his family (Rs.48,000/- - Rs.12,000/-). After considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, the Tribunal had correctly adopted the multiplier of 18 and arrived the loss of income at Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 18). The Tribunal had correctly fixed the monthly income, correctly fixed the age of the deceased and correctly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and correctly adopted the multiplier 18, as per schedule. So, the amount awarded under the loss of income is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. So, the amount awarded under the loss of income is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral expenses and Transport expenses, which I feel are very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- each to the claimants, towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after considering the date of award and prevailing rate during the period, which I feel 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. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.