Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. According to the learned senior counsel for the insurance company, the Tribunal, instead of adopting the multiplier of '11', ought to have taken a split multiplier as the deceased would have retired at the age of 56. It is to be noted that, the insurance company had not raised the contention regarding adoption of split multiplier in the written statement filed before the Tribunal and therefore, the said contention cannot be urged for the first time in the appeal, as the petitioners had no opportunity to object to such contention before the Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jayasree N. and Others v. Cholamandalam MS. General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (6) KHC 163], after a survey of various decisions, considered the applicability of split multiplier and held as under:

27. In Puttamma and Others v. K. L. Narayana Reddy and Another (2013 KHC 4997 : (2013) 15 SCC 45 : 2014 (1) KHC SN 6 : 2013 (15) SCALE 437 : 2014 (1) KLT 738 : AIR 2014 SC 706 : 2014 (1) KLJ 777 :

2014 ACJ 526), this Court was again considering a case where split multiplier for the purpose of calculation of dependency compensation was applied. It was held thus:
"32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under S.166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased / victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier.
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."

MACA Nos.1582/2015, 3151/2014 ..23..

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 Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari, (2013) 9 SCC 65."

28. From the above discussion it is clear that at the time of calculation of the income, the Court has to consider the actual income of the deceased and addition should be made to take into account future prospects. Further, while the evidence in a given case may indicate a different percentage of increase, standardization of the addition for future prospects should be made to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. In Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) KLT 662 : ILR 2017 (4) Ker. 513 : 2017 (4) KLJ 627 : AIR 2017 SC 5157 : 2017 ACJ 2700), the Constitution Bench has directed addition of 15% of the salary in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years as a thumb rule, where a deceased had a permanent job. In view of the above, the High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier in the instant case." MACA Nos.1582/2015, 3151/2014 ..24.. There is absolutely no reason or evidence on record to apply split multiplier in the case on hand and in the light of the dictum laid down in Jayasree (supra), the contention of the insurance company is to be rejected. The multiplier to be applied is the multiplier in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra).