Judgment :- 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.02.2010 passed in MCOP No.272 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dharmapuri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- One deceased Periyasamy @ Settu met with a motor traffic accident on 03.06.2008 at about 2.00 a.m. The said deceased was working as a Cleaner in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29 AC 1988 and it was loaded with iron ore. When the lorry was proceeding towards Gummudipoondi at that time, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and also with high speed and dashed against another lorry bearing Registration No.TN 29 AB-7318. Due to which, the deceased cleaner of the lorry sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was admitted in Appollo hospital at Bangalore and he died in the hospital. The claimant is the mother of the deceased who claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The said lorry was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had happened due to the rashandnegligent driving of the first respondent vehicle driver and is insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident? b) Whether the principle of contributed negligence is applicable to the present facts of the case? c) Whether the petition is dismissed as non jointer of necessary parties? d) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensate in the claim petition from the respondent 1 and 2? e) To what any relief the petitioner 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 lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,09,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Loss of Income Rs.5,44,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- Funeral and Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.1,50,000/- ---------------- Total... Rs.7,09,000/- ---------------- Aggrieved by the award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. The details of the compensation are as under:- Loss of Income Rs.5,44,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- Funeral and Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.1,50,000/- ---------------- Total... Rs.7,09,000/- ---------------- Aggrieved by the award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification, and further it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses and also wrongly adopted multiplier of 17 as against 16 and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal passed the award passed which is just, fair and reasonable and based on valid material evidence and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and Ex.R1 was marked P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2-Madesh is an eye witness to the accident. Ex.A1 is the copy of the first information report. Ex.A2 is the Translated copy of Fir. Ex.A3 is the Post Mortem Report, Ex.A4 is the death certificate. Ex.A5 is the Insurance policy Copy. Ex.A6 is the Legal Heir Certificate, Ex.A7 is the medical bills. After considering the above 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 lorry. The finding of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. It is question of fact and the same is confirmed. 6. 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 Income 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 Income 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 Income 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 Income 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 Income 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 Income assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier" (emphasis supplied) 7. 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. 8. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years. In Ex.A3, Post Mortem Report, the age of the deceased was shown as 20 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal based on the evidence fixed the age of the deceased as 20 years. Teh learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the age of the mother is 33 years the age of the deceased would be only 15. But in the present case, the Tribunal computed the loss of Income on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased and the Tribunal adopred the multiplier of 17 on the basis of the age of the mother who is 33 years old at the time of the accident. Further, he contended that there is no substanital evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-as Cleaner. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. on the ground that the Cleaner would have earned Rs.4,000/- p.m. and determined annual income at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000 X 12). Out of the said amount, the Tribunal has deducted the 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and taken the balance 2/3rd Rs.32,000/- as annual contribution to the deceased's family and determined the loss of Income by adopting the multiplier of 17at Rs.5,44,000/- (Rs.32,000x 17). The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal was wrong in adopting the multiplier of 17. On the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Sarala Varma's case, the multiplier to be adopted is only 16. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal was wrong in adopting the multiplier of 17. On the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Sarala Varma's case, the multiplier to be adopted is only 16. Hence, the loss of Income is computed as follows: Out of monthly income of Rs.4,000/-, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance amount is taken as monthly contribution and the annual contribution would be Rs.24,000 and by adopting the multiplier of 16, the loss of Income is Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.24,000X16). Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Since the mother lost her only son, the award towards loss of love and affection is very meagre and the reasonable award is Rs.15,000/- as against the same. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted in Appollo hospital at Bangalore. Therefore, the reasonable amount would be Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical bills. There is no dispute that after the accident, he was admitted in the hospital and Ex.A7 the medical bills show that it is actual expenditure and therefore, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition after taking into consideration of date of award and the prevailing rate of interest, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Hence, the modified compensation is as follows: Loss of Income - Rs.3,84,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses & Transportation - Rs. 15,000/- Medical Bills - Rs.1,50,000/- ---------------- Total - Rs.5,64,000/- The claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that they have already deposited Rs.4,50,000/- with accrued interest by order of this court dated 14.11.2010. 9. Under these circumstances, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- with interest at 7.5%p.a. Less the amount already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Under these circumstances, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- with interest at 7.5%p.a. Less the amount already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such deposit,the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand only) with interest at 7.5%p.a. Less the amount already withdrawn if any on making proper application. The civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.