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 17.01.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No.160 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 22.02.1999 at about 2.30 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding in his bicycle towards Thanipady Chinnaiyampet Junction Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN28X 4566, belonging to the first respondent, which came in the opposite direction, was driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The second respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim. The claimants are wife, minor son, minor daughter and parents of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the driver is responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so to what extent?" 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 Lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 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. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record. Further, he stated that at the time of allowing the condone delay petition, this Court has held that the claimants are entitled the interest only from the date of numbering the C.M.A. as per the order dated 23.11.2010. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the materials available on records and awarded a just fair and reasonable compensation. Further, he stated that at the time of allowing the condone delay petition, this Court has held that the claimants are entitled the interest only from the date of numbering the C.M.A. as per the order dated 23.11.2010. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the materials available on records and awarded a just fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the matter has to be confirmed with interest. 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.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 – Chandira is the wife of the deceased. PW2-Annadurai is an eye witness to the occurrence. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report dated 22.02.1999. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report dated 23.02.1999. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Post Mortem dated 23.02.1999. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet dated 31.03.1999. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.179/99 dated 14.12.1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Chengam. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 36 years. Ex.A3 is the Postmortem report, in which, the age of deceased was shown as 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 36 years at the time of the accident. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, deposed in her evidence that the deceased was Maistry and was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. Ex.A3 is the Postmortem report, in which, the age of deceased was shown as 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 36 years at the time of the accident. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, deposed in her evidence that the deceased was Maistry and was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. But, no documentary evidence is filed to support the same. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- p.m. and determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1500 x 12). After considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16' and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 16). Out of the said amount, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of Rs.96,000/- towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.1,92,000/- as loss of income. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards non conventional damages. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- p.m. Further, he submitted that though the family of the deceased consisting of more than five members, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, which is not in accordance with law. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- p.m. Out of the said amount, if 1/4th of Rs.500/- (Rs.2,000/- x 1/4) is deducted towards personal expenses on basis of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra in the case of Sarla Verma, the balance sum of Rs.1,500/- is taken as the monthly contribution to his family and the annual income works out to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1500/- x 12). There is no dispute regarding the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, if multiplier 16' is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 16) as against a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and other expenses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs.12,000/- under these heads. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and other expenses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs.12,000/- under these heads. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. After considering the date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest, the interest at 9% awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as follows: Loss of Income-Rs.2,88,000/- loss of love and affection, Funeral and other expenses-Rs. 12,000/- ------------------ Total-Rs.3,00,000/- Less: Tribunal awarded-Rs.1,92,000/- ------------------- enhanced amount-Rs.1,08,000/- ------------------- The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest. The said interest is to be calculated only from the date of numbering the C.M.A. i.e. on 25.11.2010. 10. Both the counsel fairly submitted that the present appeal was filed by the appellant belatedly. This Court condoned the delay on condition that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of numbering the C.M.A. i.e. 25.11.2010. Both the counsel also agreed that the date of numbering the C.M.A. is 25.11.2010. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the interest for the enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5% from the date of numbering the C.M.A. 11. Under those circumstance, the second respondent-Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 25.11.2010, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, on making proper application. In respect of minors' share, viz. claimants 2 and 3 are concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the same in any one of the Nationalised Bank in fixed deposit, till they attain majority. The mother of the minors', the first respondent, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest thereon, once in three months, on making proper application. 12. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.