The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep by Its Divisional Manager and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep by Its Divisional Manager V. Sri Prithviraj S/o Laxman Kadam and Sri Basavaraj S/o Basavalingappa Goudar and Chandrashekhar S/o Appasaheb @ Avinash Pool and Huligeppe S/o Huleppa Naikar

MFA.CROB/771/2010

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross-objections filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the judgments passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hubli, in two connected motor vehicle accident cases (MVC No.407/2006 and MVC No.408/2006). The accidents resulted in severe injuries and fatalities, leading to compensation claims. The Tribunal awarded substantial compensation to the victims and their families, which the insurance company contested, arguing that the compensation calculations were erroneous. The claimants, on the other hand, sought enhancement of the compensation. The High Court's decision addressed the validity of the compensation amounts, the application of multipliers in calculating future loss of earnings, and the appropriateness of the awarded amounts for pain, suffering, and other heads of compensation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799084 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: SUBASHCHAND JAIN vs GANAPATHI AND ANOTHER [2002 (4) Kar.LJ 433][DB], UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs K.S.LAKSHMI KUMAR AND OTHERS [ILR 2000 KAR 3809], SMT. ARATI AND OTHERS vs GOUSE HUSSAINAB MAKANDAR AND ANOTHER [MFA No. 25007/2012 & 15 CONNECTED MATTERS DECIDED ON 20.1.2014], PUTTAMMA AND OTHERS vs K.L.NARAYANA REDDY AND ANOTHER [2014 ACJ 526], K.R. MADHUSUDHAN vs ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [c2011 ACJ 743], NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. MALANA BAI AND OTHERS [MFA 12247/2007 DECIDED ON 24.10.2011], Sarla Verma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [2009 ACJ 1298 SC], Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan [2013 ACJ 1253 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R H ANGADI; HARISH NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: G N RAICHUR
• Keywords: Compensation; Functional Disability; Loss of Future Income; Motor vehicle accident; Split Multiplier
• Section: 173(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MFA NO.20727/2010 (MV) C/W. MFA NO. 20728/2010 & MFA CROB. 771/2010 (MV) MFA NO.20727/2010 : BETWEEN : 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL SHRINATH COMPLEX NEW COTTON MERKET HUBLI REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE 2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P KALINGARAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) B,LORE 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIGISIONAL SHRINATH COMPLEX NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE 2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P KALINGARAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) B’LORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G N RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI PRITHVIRAJ S/O LAXMAN KADAM AGED 49 YEARS OCC INDIAN NONI MEDICAL DISTRIBUTOR AND ELECTRIC 2 EQUIPMENTS SERVICE AND REPAIRS R/O H NO 18 NEAR M T MILL KARWAR ROAD HUBLI 2. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVALINGAPPA GOUDAR AGE MAJOR OCC OWNER OF LORRY NO MET 4546 R/O 197 MARUTI NAGAR NEKAR NAGAR ROAD OLD HUBLI HUBLI 3. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O APPASAHEB @ AVINASH POOL AGE MAJOR R/O H NO 61/1 CHANDRODAYA HOUSING SOCIETY CST ROAD SWASTIK CHAMBER CHAMBUR MUMBAI 71 4. HULIGEPPA S/O HULEPPA NAIKAR AGE MAJOR DRIVER OF LORRY NO MET 4546 R/O CHANNAPUR TQ HUBLI ... RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE SD) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 10-11-2009 PASSED IN MVC.NO.407/2006 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, MACT, HUBLI. IN MFA NO.20728/2010 BETWEEN : 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SHRINATH COMPLEX NEW COTTON MERKET HUBLI REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE 2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P KALINGARAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) B,LORE 3 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD KOLHAPUR, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE SHRINATH COMPLEX NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE 2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P KALINGARAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) B’LORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G N RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O RAMACHANDRA GHODKE AGE 56 YEARS OCC NIL R/O III RD CROSS KRISHNAPUR OLD HUBLI HUBLI (R1 SINCE DEAD, R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS HIS LRS VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2014) 2. SRI HEMANT S/O MALLIKARJUN GHODKE AGE 27 YEARS; OCC: STUDENT R/O III CROSS, KRISHNAPUR OLD HUBLI, HUBLI 3. SRI SHARAD S/O MALLIKARJUN GHODKE, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O III CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI. 4. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVALINGAPPA GOUDAR AGE MAJOR OCC OWNER OF LORRY NO MET 4546 R/O 197 MARUTI NAGAR NEKAR NAGAR ROAD OLD HUBLI, HUBLI 5. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O APPASAHEB @ AVINASH POOL AGE MAJOR R/O H NO 61/1 CHANDRODAYA 4 HOUSING SOCIETY CST ROAD SWASTIK CHAMBER CHAMBUR MUMBAI 71 6. HULIGEPPA S/O HULEPPA NAIKAR AGE MAJOR DRIVER OF LORRY NO MET 4546 R/O CHANNAPUR, TQ HUBLI ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 AND R3; R4, 5 AND 6 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 10-11-2009 PASSED IN MVC.NO.408/2006 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, MACT, HUBLI. IN MFA CROB. 771/2010 : BETWEEN : 1. MALLIKARJUN S/O RAMACHANDRA GHODKE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/AT 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI. 2. MR. HEMANT S/O MALLIKARJUN GHODKE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/AT 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI. 3. MR. SHARAD S/O MALLIKARJUN GHODKE, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/AT 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI. .. CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. R H ANGADI & HARISH.S.NAYAK, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. 5 2. BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVLINGAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO MEI-4546, R/O NO. 197, MARUTI NAGAR, NEKAR NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI 3. SRI. APPASAHEB @ AVINASH S/O YELLAPPA POL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O APPASAHEB @ AVINASH POL, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O H. NO. 61/1, CHANDRADOYA HOUSING SOCIETY, CST ROAD,SWASTIK CHAMBER, MUMBAI.71 4. THE NEW INIDA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLHAPUR BRANCH, BY ITS DIVISION OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. 5. HULIGEPPA S/O HULEPPA NAIKAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. MET-4546, R/O CHANNAPUR, TQ. HUBLI. ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA CROB FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10-11-2009 PASSED IN MVC.NO.408/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, MACT, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MFAs AND MFA CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.11.2016, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : - JUDGMENT These two appeals and cross-objections are disposed of together as they arise out of common 6 judgment and award passed by MACT, Hubli, in MVC No.407/2006 and 408/2006. M.F.A. No.20727/2010 and M.F.A. No. 20728/2010 are filed by the insurance company and Cross-objection No.771/2010 is filed by the claimants in M.V.C. No.408/2006. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as below : On 19.05.2006 Prithviraj, the claimant in M.V.C. No.407/2006; Sulochana, the wife of first claimant and mother of claimants No.2 and 3 in M.V.C. No.408/2006 and some others were travelling in a car bearing Reg. No.MH/43-N-5458. The car was being driven by one Avinash. When they were coming on Karwar road, a lorry bearing Reg. No.MEI/4546 dashed against the car because of rash and negligent manner of driving by the lorry driver. This accident resulted in petitions being filed claiming compensation for the injured as also in respect of those who were killed in the said accident. 3. The tribunal held an enquiry and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, awarded an amount of Rs.4,97,786/- to the claimant in M.V.C. No.407/2006 and Rs.16,34,624/- to the claimants in M.V.C. No.408/2006 in connection with death of Smt. 7 Sulochana. Aggrieved by this award, the insurance company has preferred these two appeals, and the petitioners have preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. In fact, cross-objection No.772/2010, filed in M.F.A. No.20727/2010, was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for insurance company, and also the claimants in both the appeals and cross objectors. 5. Firstly, MFA No. 20727/2010 is taken up for discussion. 6. The claimant in MVC No. 407/2006, who got examined himself as PW5, produced documents as per Exs.P16 to Exs.P24. Exs. P16 is a wound certificate which discloses that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur, multiple fracture of ribs, loss of upper five and lower teeth, displaced parasymphyseal fracture, lefort type II maxilla fracture and mild palatel split. All these injuries are grievous in nature. Exs.P.17 and 18 are the disability certificates. With regard to these injuries, two doctors, PWs 5 and 6 were examined by the Tribunal. It is the opinion of PW5 that the claimant has suffered 8 permanent physical disability amounting to 35% to his lower limb, and 30% to thorax. Another doctor-PW6 has given an opinion that there is aesthetic disability of 30%. Based on the evidence of these two doctors, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is 20% functional disability. Then holding the claimant’s annual income at Rs.1,00,000/- after deduction of income tax and applying the multiplier ‘13’ applicable to the claimant’s age, loss of future income has been arrived at Rs.2,60,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,37,786/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded is Rs.4,97,786/-. 7. The argument of the appellant’s counsel is that, since the claimant is a business man, the Tribunal should not have come to a conclusion that there is functional disability and therefore awarding an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- towards loss of future earning is an error committed by the Tribunal. It is his further argument that compensation towards loss of future income can be awarded only to those persons who earn income by doing physical labour and whose bodily injury affects the earning capacity. Since the claimant is a businessman, and since the doctor has opined that the claimant can 9 still do business, the Tribunal should not have awarded any amount towards loss of future income. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SUBASHCHAND JAIN vs GANAPATHI AND ANOTHER [2002 (4) Kar.LJ 433][DB]. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation towards loss of future earnings in the light of the evidence placed by the claimant. The Tribunal should have granted some amount under the head of loss of amenities. 9. If the entire evidence of the witnesses is considered, what transpires is that the claimant is a businessman. He was a distributor of a herbal medicine called ‘Noni’. In proof of this he has produced a set of documents collectively marked as Ex. P.20. Ex.P.21 is the income tax return filed by the claimant filed for the assessment year 2005-06, and from this, it can be noticed that the declared income of the claimant is Rs.1,00,899/-. Ex.P.22 is a certificate issued by Classic Book Manufacturers to the effect that claimant was working as Machine Maintainer and he was being paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month towards remuneration. Based on 10 these documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that his income could be taken as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The income thus considered by the Tribunal can be held to be proper, even the appellant’s counsel has not argued on this point. He confined his argument to the point that the Tribunal should not have awarded any amount towards future earnings. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Subashchand Jain’s case (supra) has held that as under : - “8. … The loss in a business if it has to be compensated should have been as a result of the injury and the consequent handicap which directly affects the management of the business. It is also necessary that in the first instance the income from the business should have been proved cogently and then there should be further material to indicate as to what would be the income from that business which has been reduced because of the injury. In the absence of any convincing and cogent material on this aspect either with regard to the exact amount of income or the exact loss of such income we are not inclined to award any amount by applying the principles which are called into aid in determining the loss of future earning in respect of a person who earns income by physical labour and whose bodily 11 injury directly affects the work and earning capacity of such person. The loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. Any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from the business and so there is no occasion to apply the same principles. Therefore, we reject the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled for any amount of compensation under the head “loss of future earning”. 11. From the above ratio, what can be made out is that the physical disability need not result in loss of earning from business. But, if there is convincing and cogent material, even if the claimant is a businessman, loss of earning capacity can be considered and amount awarded under this head. In this case, the claimant has produced documents to show that he was a distributor ‘NONI’. Income tax returns are also produced by him. Another document is also there to show that he is a repairer of electronics items. In the cross-examination an attempt is made to elicit from him that even after accident he is doing the business; but, he has denied those suggestions. The cross-examination does not disclose any 12 attempt being made by the insurance company to disbelieve his evidence in chief that after the accident, he is not able to do the business and that there is reduction in his income. In fact, in the affidavit filed by him he has clearly stated that for distributing “Noni” he was moving from place to place and after the accident he has given up the said business. There is no cross-examination on this aspect. Therefore, from this evidence, it is possible to draw an inference that accident has affected his business. Hence, awarding compensation to the claimant under the head loss of future income by the Tribunal appears to be proper and correct. 12. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘13’, regard being had to his age at the time of the accident. Though the doctor has opined there is functional disability to the extent of 30%, but the Tribunal has considered the functional disability at 20%, which cannot be held to be improper. Thus, the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- has been arrived at for loss of future earning. There is no error in the calculation so made by the Tribunal. 13 13. What can be noticed from the impugned judgment is, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The counsel for the respondent has argued that nothing has been granted towards loss of amenities. It is true that no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities. The respondent’s cross-objection stood dismissed for not complying with the office objections. Therefore, the respondent cannot now urge that some amount should have been granted towards loss of amenities. Anyway, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering appears to be on a higher side and for this reason, whatever the amount that could have been granted towards loss of amenities is included in this amount. Thus, Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be further reduced. Further, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.1,37,786/- by meticulously examining the medical bills produced. For all these reasons, Rs.4,97,786/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation appears to be just and proper. Hence there cannot be any further reduction in this amount. Therefore, this appeal fails. 14 MFA No. 20728/2010 a/w Crob. 771/2010 14. The main point argued for the appellants- insurance company is that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation by applying split multiplier. Learned counsel argued that the deceased-Sulochana was working as a teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya and getting monthly salary of Rs.18,549/-. Her age at the time of death was 54 years and only 6 years were left for her retirement. Although multiplier ‘11’ is applicable in the case of death of a person aged 54 years, but after retirement there would be reduction of income as the employee will get only pension. While calculating the loss of dependency, the net salary should be considered only for the period an employee remains in service, and after retirement there must be 50% reduction. Thus considered, the multiplier ‘11’ can be split into two parts, 6 years for the period till retirement, and 5 for post retirement. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs K.S.LAKSHMI KUMAR AND OTHERS [ILR 2000 KAR 3809] and SMT. ARATI AND OTHERS vs GOUSE HUSSAINAB MAKANDAR AND ANOTHER [MFA No. 25007/2012 & 15 CONNECTED MATTERS DECIDED ON 20.1.2014]. He also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. MALANA BAI AND OTHERS [MFA 12247/2007 DECIDED ON 24.10.2011]. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/cross objector argued that, split multiplier cannot be applied at all. Proper multiplier must be chosen considering the age of the deceased. The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier. In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PUTTAMMA AND OTHERS vs K.L.NARAYANA REDDY AND ANOTHER [2014 ACJ 526] and also this Court in the case of SMT. JARINA AND OTHERS vs THE PRINCIPAL, KLE SOCIETY’S SRI B.M.KANKANWADI AYURVED COLELGE, BELGAUM AND ANOTHER [MFA 101592/2014 AND C/W MATTERS DECIDED ON 1.2.2016]. He further argued that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and proper. 16. The reason why split multiplier must be considered is very well explained and illustrated by the 16 Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Lakshmi Kumar’s case (supra) as follows:- “16. Where the multiplier applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with the reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving behind him surviving his wife and two children, how should the total loss of dependency be calculated? Let us assume that his salary was Rs. 6,000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs. 3,000.00. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be '9'. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one-third, the contribution to the family during the period of service (4 years period) would have been Rs. 4,000/- (that is Rs. 6000-2000). But, obviously the contribution to the family would not have been Rs. 4,000/- after his retirement, that is from the 5th year onwards. When the pension 17 is Rs. 3,000/- per month, after deducting one- third as personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will only to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9 years representing the multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the first four years (when he would have been in service) and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case. 17. Again in the case of Smt. Arati (supra), the Division Bench of this Court followed the split multiplier method and calculated the compensation amount in the following manner :- “11. The facts are not in dispute. First claimant is the widow and claimants 2 and 3 are the sons and 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased Suresh Shrikanth Angadi. He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD. Though Ex.P-7-salary certificate issued by the department shows, in all, he was drawing Rs.42,777/-, it is not in the prescribed form. That apart, the petitioners have produced Form No.16 filed before the Income Tax Authorities which is prepared by 18 the office. The said document disclose the annual income of the deceased as Rs.3,10,155/-. Therefore, rightly, the Tribunal was justified in not acting on Ex.P-7- Salary certificate. After deducting income tax payable thereon, the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,00,000/- as the income of the deceased per annum which is just and proper. However, the Tribunal committed a mistake in deducting 1/4th out of the said amount on the ground that there are 4 claimants. The description of the claimants given in the cause title discloses that first son is aged about 24 years and second son is aged 21 years and the evidence on record shows that they have completed engineering and it is a question of some time before they start earning. In the facts of this particular case, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased has left behind 4 legal heirs, all of them cannot be construed as dependents of the deceased and therefore deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SC is not proper. The correct deduction would be only 1/3rd. If it is so, then, the loss of income would be Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The multiplier applied is 11. It is correct. The deceased was aged 54 years. He would have attained the age of superannuation in 6 years 19 during which period alone, he was entitled to full salary. In which event, the loss of income for the 6 years would be 12,00,000/-. For the remaining 5 years period, if we take 50% of the same as the income of the deceased by way of pension, he would be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- for the said period. Thus, Rs.17,00,000/- would be the loss of dependency to the claimants. The Tribunal has awarded about Rs.95,000/- under conventional heads which is proper. Thus, 17,95,000/- would be the compensation payable which could be rounded of to Rs.18,00,000/- which in our view is a just compensation payable to claimants on account of death of deceased Suresh Shrikanth Angadi.”. 18. Since the counsel for respondent has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttamma (supra) it is necessary to refer to the said decision. In paras 32 to 34 the clear observation of the Supreme Court is as follows :- “32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in selection of multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 20 1298 (SC), prepared a table for selection of multiplier based on age group of the deceased/victim. The Act, 1988 does not envisage application of split multiplier. 33. In K.R. Madhusudhan and others vs. Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 689 this Court held as follows: “14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. 21 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.” 34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC). 19. The applicability of split multiplier method and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R.MADHUSUDHAN vs ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [c2011 ACJ 743] was considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in MFA No. 12247/2007 – New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Malana Bai and others (supra). In para 16 of this judgment, the clear observation of the learned single Judge is as follows :- “16. …. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.R.Madhusudan and others vs Administrative 22 Officer and others is only with regard to the error committed by the High Court in not applying the appropriate multiplier as in the absence of reasons this Court had applied the multiplier of 6 and not 11 in the said case. In the instant case there is no dispute with regard to the multiplier of 11 to be applied”. 20. Therefore, on considering the judgments referred to above what can be noticed very much is that for applying the split multiplier method, reasons must be given. Without assigning any reasons, the compensation towards “loss of dependency” cannot be determined by splitting the multiplier. In fact, this is the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. R. Madhusudhan and in the case of Puttamma, the same has been reiterated. 21. Here, in this case the Tribunal has not followed this procedure. It has applied the multiplier ‘11’ for calculating the loss of dependency despite the fact that the deceased was a teacher in a School and had only six years left for retirement. The method thus followed by the Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, the entire compensation payable to the claimants needs to be recalculated as application of split multiplier method 23 stands to reason in the circumstances where the deceased would have retired in a few years to come if he/she were not to die. 22. There is no dispute with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. She was drawing a salary of Rs.18,549/- per month. From this amount, Rs.200/- had been deducted by the Tribunal towards professional tax. No amount has been deducted towards income tax probably for the reason that there is no evidence in that regard. Therefore, rightly the Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.18,349/- and from this amount 1/3rd has been deducted towards her personal expenses. So, the remaining amount is Rs.12,232/-, which in turn works at Rs.1,46,784/- for 12 months. Up to this, the calculation is correct. Now, applying the split multiplier, 6, for the first six years, the total amount comes to Rs.8,80,704/- and for the remaining five years, it works at Rs.3,66,960/-. Therefore, the total of these two is Rs.12,47,664/- and this is the amount that can be awarded towards ‘loss of dependency’. 24 23. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and funeral expenses, and another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. There cannot be any change in these two. The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1, who is the husband of the deceased. Nothing is awarded towards loss of love and affection to claimants No.2 and 3 who are the sons of the deceased. Rs.25,000/- each to claimants No.1 to 3 can be awarded under these heads. 24. Therefore, the total compensation awardable works out at Rs.13,42,664/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been reduced to Rs.13,42,664/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. 25. There cannot be change with regard to the apportionment of the compensation amount as has been directed by the Tribunal. 26. In view of above discussion, the appeal preferred by the insurance company has to be allowed and the claimants’ Cross Objection needs to be allowed in part. Hence, the following order :- 25 O R D E R (i) MFA No. 20727/2010 is dismissed. (ii) MFA No. 20728/2010 is allowed and MFA Crob.771/2010 is partly allowed. The compensation awardable to the claimants in M.V.C. No.408/2006 is reduced to Rs.13,42,664/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. There is no order as to costs in both the appeals and cross-objection. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ckl "