JUDGMENT :- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, by consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.131 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 16.03.2002 at about 08.15 p.m. the deceased was travelling in an Auto bearing Reg.No.TN.04/3511, belonging to the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent-Insurance Company. While, the auto was proceeding near Pattankulam Village, Nellimedu-Tiruvannamalai Road, a Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN25A-2533, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and immediately, he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, where he died. The second respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim. The claimants are wife, two sons and two daughters of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. In which negligent driving, the accident occurred? 2. Who is responsible to pay the compensation to the claimants? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and the second respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of dependency-Rs.2,34,000/- Loss of consortium-Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses-Rs. 2,000/- ------------------- Total-Rs.2,41,000/- ------------------- Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 – Panjalai is the wife of the deceased. PW2-Panneer Selvam is an eye witness to the occurrence. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 are the certified copies of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's reports, dated 16.03.2002 and 09.04.2002 respectively. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Postmortem report. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the Judgment made in C.C.No.92 of 2003, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on available materials and evidence 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. 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 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. 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 accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, deposed in her evidence that the deceased was an agricultural coollie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. In Ex.P3-Postmortem report, the age of the deceased was shown as 50 years at the time of the accident. After considering the above document and evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years. Though P.W.1 stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day, no document was produced to prove the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/- p.m. and determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs.27,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of Rs.9,000/-towards personal expenses and taken the balance amount of Rs.18,000/- as annual contribution of the deceased to his family. Taking into consideration the age of deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 13' and determined the loss of income at Rs.2,34,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 13). The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- as per Minimum Wages Act. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- as against a sum of Rs.2,250/- fixed by the Tribunal. He further argued that 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd amount deducted by the Tribunal. In the present case, the family members consists five persons. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduct 1/4th amount towards personal expenses. He further argued that 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd amount deducted by the Tribunal. In the present case, the family members consists five persons. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduct 1/4th amount towards personal expenses. If 1/4th of Rs.750/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance sum of Rs.2,250/- (Rs.3,000 – Rs.750/-) is taken as the deceased's contribution to his family. In the present case, except Ex.P2 – Postmortem report, no other document has been marked to prove the age of the deceased. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 11'. If the multiplier 11' is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs.2,97,000/-(Rs.2,250/- x 12 x 11). The claimants are entitled to modify compensation of Rs.2.97,000/- towards loss of income as against Rs.2,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is very low. After considering the age of the widow, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium as against a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the children. After considering the age of the sons and daughters of the deceased, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection to the children. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is very low and it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges and loss of estate. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards transport charges and loss of estate. Further, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss of Income-Rs.2,97,000/- Loss of consortium-Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection-Rs. 50,000/-Funeral expenses-Rs. 5,000/-Transport charges and loss of estate-Rs. 7,500/- ------------------- Total-Rs.3,69,500/-Already awarded-Rs.2,41,000/- ------------------- Enhanced amount-Rs.1,28,500/-Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,28,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 10. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss of Income-Rs.2,97,000/- Loss of consortium-Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection-Rs. 50,000/-Funeral expenses-Rs. 5,000/-Transport charges and loss of estate-Rs. 7,500/- ------------------- Total-Rs.3,69,500/-Already awarded-Rs.2,41,000/- ------------------- Enhanced amount-Rs.1,28,500/-Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,28,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 10. Under those circumstances, the second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,28,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimant that the 5th claimant viz. Pushpakala attained majority. Therefore, on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share from the enhanced amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. 11. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.