Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred against the award made in MCOP No.5691 of 2004 dated 26.3.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chenna. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Lakshminarayanan met with a motor traffic accident on 1.4.2004 at about 10.45 p.m. while he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-27-X6024 from his residence to go to Velapanchavadi, Koyembedu. When the deceased was going on the Poonamallee High Road, at that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0532 belonging to the Appellant Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed from the opposite direction, hit the Motor Cyclist. Due to the impact, he sustained multiple and fatal injuries all over the body and immediately he was taken to the hospital and he died in the hospital on the same day at 3.40 p.m. The Claimants are wife and minor son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The State Transport Corporation resisted the claim. 3.On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0532? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? 4. To what relief? 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 bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,13,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,68,000/- Loss of Expectation of Life Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 65,000/- Loss of love and affection to son Rs. 40,000/- ------------------ Total...Rs. 9,13,000/- ----------------- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Company has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. It was further contended that the Tribunal is wrong in calculating the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and it is without basis and justification. It was further contended that the Tribunal is wrong in calculating the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and it is without basis and justification. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation would also contend that the Tribunal awarded an excess amount towards expectation of life, loss of Consortium and loss of love and affection to son. Therefore, the same should be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had awarded only a meagre sum as compensation and the Tribunal ought to have awarded as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal has not considered all the relevant materials and not followed the principles of law and prayed for enhancement. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the documents available on record. 7. On the side of the Claimants Pws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the driver M.Sivaraman was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. PW2 is one Baskar who is an eye witness to the accident. P.W.3 is one R.Thirunavukkarasu who is the Employer of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the Legal Heir Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the Xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the S.S.L.C. Certificate. Ex.P4 is the Marriage Certificate. Ex.P.5 is the Driving Licence of the deceased. Ex.P.6 is the copy of Rough Sketch. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the Post mortem Certificate. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the Driving Licence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.10 is the Salary Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,13,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and on the question of fact, the same is confirmed. 8. 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. 8. 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. 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) 9. 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. 10. At the time of the accident, the deceased Lakshmi Narayanan was aged about 36 years. Ex.P.3 is the S.S.L.C. Certificate, Ex.P.4 is the Marriage Certificate and Ex.P.5 is the Driving Licence of the deceased. A perusal of all those documents would go to show that the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 36 years at the time of accident. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the deceased was a Building Contractor and also earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. P.W.3 is the alleged employer. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was supplying the materials for construction and also doing electrical, plumping work on contract basis and earning average of Rs.15,000/- per month and issued a Salary Certificate in which also it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Ex.P.10 is the Salary Certificate. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances was of the view that if the deceased was really earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m., he should have been an income-tax assessee. But no document was filed to support the same. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and after considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 36 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 16 in accordance with the schedule. But no document was filed to support the same. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and after considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 36 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 16 in accordance with the schedule. In respect of the income, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and the taken the balance of Rs.4,000/- towards his contribution to the family and computed the loss of income to the family as follows: Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.7,68,000/- 11.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation contended that there is no basis for the Tribunal to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the business the deceased was carrying on, it is reasonable to fix the salary of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- p.m. and out of the annual income of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12), 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to Rs.20,000/- and the balance of Rs.40,000/- was taken as his annual contribution and after adopting the multiplier of 16, the loss of income is computed as follows: Rs.40,000/- x 16 = Rs.6,40,000/-. Therefore, the loss of income is fixed at Rs.6,40,000/- as against Rs.7,68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident is 36 years. If there is no accident occurred, he would have earned more than that. After considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of Expectation of Life. It is very reasonable. Therefore, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards loss of Consortium after considering the fact that the age of the wife of the deceased is 34 years. After considering the facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards loss of Consortium. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards love and affection towards the minor son as the son lost the love of his father. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards Funeral Expenses and Transport. It is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Transport Charges. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards Funeral Expenses and Transport. It is reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Transport Charges. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs.6,40,000/- Loss of Expectation and Future Prospectus Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- Funeral and Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000/- -------------------- Total Rs.7,45,000/- ------------------- Therefore, the claimants/respondents are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.9,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The date of accident is 1.1.2004. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, I feel that it is reasonable to award interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.9,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Transport Corporation stated that they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with proportionate interest by this Court by order dated 3.4.2009. Under these circumstances, the Claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% and the wife of the deceased/the 1st claimant is directed to withdraw her share, less the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In respect of the share of the minor son/2nd Claimant, his share is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank in a Fixed Deposit till he attains majority and the Natural Guardian-cum-mother, namely, the 1st claimant, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest thereon in the share of her minor son once in six months by making proper application. In those circumstances, the Appellant Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 13. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.