JUDGMENT : 1. Both the Appeals and Cross Objections are filed by both the Insurance Company as well as Claimants against the common order passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. Nos.679 and 775 of 2004 dated 30.12.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (District Judge), Thiruvannamalai. 2. These Appeals and Cross Objections arise out of the award made in M.C.O.P. Nos.679 and 775 and they re taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Background facts in a nutshell as follows. The deceased in C.M.A. 129 of 2011 Palani and the deceased in C.M.A. 130 of 2011 Ahmed Batcha met with a Motor Cycle accident on 2.6.2004 at about 2.45 p.m. When they were traveling in a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-AC-3339 along with five more persons. When the Lorry proceeding on Thiruvannamalai – Krishnagiri and they were proceeding towards Nagalpatti junction, the driver of the Lorry lost control of the vehicle and hit against a Tamarind Tree in the process, the Lorry caught fire and due to the impact both the deceased died on the spot. 4. In C.M.A. 129 of 2011, the Claimants are wife, two sons and daughter of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. In C.M.A. No.130 of 2011 the Claimant are wife, parents, teo married sisters and minor son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 5. The said lorry was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company in both C.M.As., who resisted the claim. 6. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: a. Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry owned by the First Respondent? b. Who is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants? c. Whether the Claimant are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much? 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry and further held the deceased were traveling load men and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the payment of compensation in C.M.A. No.129 of 2011 and the details of the compensation are as under. Loss of Income : Rs.3,12,000 Loss of Consortium : Rs. 5,000 Funeral Expenses :Rs. Loss of Income : Rs.3,12,000 Loss of Consortium : Rs. 5,000 Funeral Expenses :Rs. 2,000 Total :Rs.3,19,000 In C.M.A.130 of 2011 the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest at 7.5% and the details of the compensation are as under: Loss of Income :Rs. 4,08,000 Loss of Consortium : Rs. 5,000 Funeral Expenses : Rs. 2,000 Total : Rs. 4,15,000 Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed a C.M.A. Nos.129 & 130 of 2011 and the Claimants also filed Cross Objections Nos.20 and 19 of 2011 respectively for enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that they are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased are unauthorized passengers and they re not load men. Further, he has contended that the owner of the vehicle has given an undertaking that if there is any claim made she would pay the compensation and strenuously contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the Claimants and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and hence, it is a fit case for enhancing the compensation. 10. Heard the Counsel and perused the materials available on record. 11. The views of the deceased in both the cases were examined as PW2 and PW1 respectively. PW3 is eye witness to the accident. On the side of the Claimants. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. ExP1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Post-mortem Certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Policy. Ex.P4 is the Legal Heir Certificate. Ex.P5 is copy of Post-mortem Certificate. On behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, one ganesan was examined as RW1 and three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. 12. ExP1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Post-mortem Certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Policy. Ex.P4 is the Legal Heir Certificate. Ex.P5 is copy of Post-mortem Certificate. On behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, one ganesan was examined as RW1 and three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal was wrong in fixing liability on the Insurance Company and the finding given by the Tribunal that the deceased were traveling as load men is not in accordance with law and there is no basis for the same. 13. Even the owner of the vehicle, 5th Respondent in C.M.A.129 of 2011 and 7th Respondent in C.M.A. 130 of 2011 has given evidence stating that the deceased were not load men and they were only passengers traveling at the time of the accident,. Further, in Ex.R1, the agreement entered between the said owner with the Appellant/Insurance Company, it is clearly stated that the owner undertakes to pay the Insurance Company any amount claimed in future against the Insurance Company by the Claimants. The Tribunal without considering the same has come to the conclusion that the deceases were load men traveling in the lorry at the tie of the accident. So, the finding given by the Tribunal has no basis and is also perverse one. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal has to be set aside in respect of the liability. It is only the owner of the vehicle viz., that the 5th Respondent in C.M.A. 129 of 2011 and 7th Respondent in C.M.A.130 of 2011 who is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 14. In the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (4) MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to betaken 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 Columbo Electric Rly. Co. “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 Columbo Electric Rly. Co. Ltd., 1951 AC 601 and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Colleries 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 v. 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 decease 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 lie 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 decease 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 capitalized by multip0lying 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 approp0riate multiplier. Then that should be capitalized by multip0lying 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 approp0riate 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 it 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 lot, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the decease 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, 1994 (2) SCC 176 , 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 wife and product 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 wife and product 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 Contra 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 sue of an appropriate multiplier.” (emphasis supplied) In the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v. Mohammed Jameel and another, 2009 (1) TN MAC 118 (SC) : 2009 (2) SCC 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 an the compensation to the 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. paras5) “5. …..The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such an would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair things.’ 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 cut of misfortune that has befallen them. 18. The question as to what factors should be kept in views 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 date 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 date 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 dependent 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 dependents is beset with difficulties from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents, 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 hve lived or the dependents 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 dependents 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 date, 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 pending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lumpsum, by capitalizing 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 pending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lumpsum, by capitalizing 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 considered the facts of the present case. 14-A. C.M.A. No.129 of 2011: It is true that in C.M.A. 129 of 2011 against M.C.O.P. No.679 of 2004 the decease was 50 years at the time fo the accident. In Ex.P5, Post-mortem Report the age of the deceased was stated as 50 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years at the time fo the accident. It was further stated by PW2, who is wife of the deceased, that he was earning Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and fixed annual income at Rs.36,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses and the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- was taken as his annual contribution and after consideration the age of the deceased, the tribunal adopted multiplier method 13 and arrived at Rs.3,12,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly and adopted multiplier ‘13’ in accordance with law. Therefore, the same is confirmed. Further, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Consortium and another sum of Rs.2,000 towards Funeral Expenses and the same is very reasonable and is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded interest ay 7.5% p.a., which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 15. After taking into consideration the date of accident, the status of the Claimant and also in the interest of justice, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest, less amount already deposited, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, only major Claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation by making proper Application. On such deposit, only major Claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation by making proper Application. In respect of the share of minor, the same shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till he attains majority and the mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw accrued interest once in three months. In view of the earliest finding given that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation, liberty is given to the Insurance Company to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the award amount with interest by filing Executive proceeding in accordance with law in the same proceeding. 16. C.M.A. 130 of 2011: The age of deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. The Ex.P2 is the Post-mortem Report, in which it is stated that the deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of deceased 24 years at the time of the accident. PW1 in her evidence further stated that the deceased was a load man earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. The Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and determined annual income of Rs.36,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd Rs.12,000/- towards Personal Expenses and the balance amount Rs.24,000/- was taken as the contribution to the family of the deceased. After taking into consideration, the age of the deceased was 24 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ and arrived at the Loss of Income at Rs.4,08,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age of the deceased, and monthly as well as annual income and also correct in adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ as per schedule. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards Loss of Consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The date of the accident is 2.6.2004. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period and date of award, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 17. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The date of the accident is 2.6.2004. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period and date of award, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 17. After taking into consideration the date of accident, the status of the Claimant and also in the interest of justice, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest at 7.5% less the amount already deposited, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the amount, major Claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share by making proper Application. In respect of the share of the minor, the same shall be deposited in any other nationalized Bank till he attains majority and the mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months. In view of the earlier finding given that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation, liberty is given to the Insurance Company to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the award amount with interest by filing execution proceeding in accordance with law in the same proceeding. 18. Under these circumstances, both Appeals as well as Cross Objections are disposed of accordingly. All connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.