JUDGMENT :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant – Insurance company against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2008 made in MCOP No.132 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 02.12.2001 at about 9.45 p.m., the deceased Ramu met with motor vehicle accident. While he was walking along with his friend Natarajan, towards South side in front of Casino Bakery at Kamaraj Salai, Pondichyerry, a motor cycle bearing Registration No.PY01 Q 7144 belonging to the fifth respondent and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. / appellant, came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the deceased Ramu. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and immediately, he was taken to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. Later, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Chennai, where he died on 05.12.2001. The claimants are wife and three sons of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said motor cycle was insured with the appellant / New India Assurance Co. Ltd, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the 1st respondent vehicle caused this accident? 2. Whether this accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver? 3. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation? 4. What amount the petitioners are entitled as compensation? 5. What relief sought for?" 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 motor cycle and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of Income Rs.2,60,000/- Mental Agony Rs. 20,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000/- ----------------- Total...Rs.3,47,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant / New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / New India Assurance Co. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000/- ----------------- Total...Rs.3,47,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant / New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / New India Assurance Co. Ltd submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.PY01-Q-7144 involved in the accident. He further contended that the FIR was lodged after a period of two years and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded the compensation is a fair and reasonable and findings given by the Tribunal is based on the valid materials of evidence. Therefore, the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 – Mrs. Anjalai is the wife of the deceased. PW2 – Mr. Veeramuthu is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW3 – Mr.Ganaprakasam, is the Investigation Officer. PW4 – Mr. Natarajan is an eye witness to the occurrence. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No.722/01 of Pondicherry Traffic Police. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the Charge Alteration Report. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of the Accident Inspection Report. Ex.P4 is the postmortem report. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of the final report. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of FIR, Statements, Charge Sheet etc. marked by PW3. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal relied on the Ex.P1, i.e. FIR and also the evidence of PW2 as well as PW4, who were examined as eye witnesses of the accident and held that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.PY01 Q 7144, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. marked by PW3. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal relied on the Ex.P1, i.e. FIR and also the evidence of PW2 as well as PW4, who were examined as eye witnesses of the accident and held that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.PY01 Q 7144, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on available materials and evidence 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. 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. 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. 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. 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..... 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) 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. 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 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. 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. 8. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 46 years. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of deceased as 46 years at the time of accident. 8. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 46 years. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of deceased as 46 years at the time of accident. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased deposed in her evidence that the deceased was selling Firewood and he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. But, no documentary evidence was marked to prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at 2,500/- p.m. and determined the annual income at Rs.30,000/- (Rs.2,500 x 12 = Rs.30,000/). The Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 46 years, has adopted multiplier of 13' as per the schedule and determined the loss of income at Rs.3,90,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 13). Out of said amount, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of Rs.1,30,000/- towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as loss of income. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, I am of view that the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age of the deceased and monthly as well as annual income and also correctly adopted the multiplier as per the Schedule. Therefore, the amount awarded towards loss of income is in accordance with law, and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal awarded compensation towards mental agony is unwarranted. Therefore, the same is deleted. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. At the time of accident, the age of the widow was 40 years and the amount awarded under this head is very meager and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of consortium as against a sum of Rs.25,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection to the three children, which is very low. After considering the age of the children, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards love and affection as against a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. This award amount is very reasonable, therefore, the same is confirmed. After considering the age of the children, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards love and affection as against a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. This award amount is very reasonable, therefore, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral charges. This award amount is very low. The deceased died in the Chennai Hospital and the dead body was taken from Chennai to Pondicherry. Considering the said fact, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as against a sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. The claimant was admitted in the Hospital only three days. Considering the same, the amount awarded under these heads are unwarranted and the same are deleted. Further, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of award, i.e.03.04.2008, the rate of interest is excessive, hence, the same is modified to 7.5% p.a. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss of Income-Rs.2,60,000/- Loss of consortium-Rs. 35,000/- Love and affection-Rs. 35,000/- Transport charges-Rs. 5,000/-Funeral Expenses-Rs. 5,000/- ----------------- Total-Rs.3,40,000/- ------------------ Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition as against a sum of Rs.3,47,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company has not deposited any amount. Therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- 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. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal less the amount if any, already withdrawn, on proper application. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition closed.