Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. But taking note of the deduction in the extent of income after her retirement, a split multiplier was adopted. For the period of 4 years left in her service, the full salary was adopted for determining the multiplicand. For the remaining period of 7 years, the multiplicand was fixed by adopting 50% of the salary, observing that if she would have alive she will be entitled only for a monthly pension, which will only be half of the salary.

25. In Kumaran, relying on the decision of the decision of the Apex Court in Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy [(2013) 15 SCC 45] it was contended before the Division Bench that, adoption of a split multiplier method by the Tribunal is illegal. In Puttamma the Apex Court observed that, in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal should not apply any split multiplier in a routine course and should apply the multiplier applicable as per decision in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]. In support of the above proposition reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Apex Court in Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer [(2011) 4 SCC 689]. In the said case, the split multiplier adopted by the High Court was reversed by the Apex Court, observing that, the High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal, without disclosing any reasons thereof. In Madhusudhan the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal was reduced to 6 by the High Court, without specifying any reasons.

26. In Kumaran, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court opined that, in both the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhusudhan as well as in Puttamma, the dictum laid is only to the effect that in the absence of any specific reasons and availability of evidence on record, split multiplier should not be adopted in a routine course and the multiplier as specified in Sarala Verma, which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari shall be adopted. But, in the case at hand, the specific reason mentioned for adopting different multiplicands for different periods, within the multiplier of 11 years, is based on evidence available and the reasoning mentioned thereof is well founded. Another Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa [2015 (1) KHC 729] held that, while fixing the compensation a balancing of all essential factors, including disadvantages will have to be adopted by the Court. When there is a sure date of superannuation it cannot be ignored that there will be a reduction in the multiplicand. In case of a Government employee, it is sure that the deceased would earn only a monthly pension after his/her retirement. Accepting the arguments of the Insurance Company, the Division Bench in Valsa observed that, while taking the multiplier of 13 a reduction of salary going by the date of superannuation will be justified. Therefore, the Division Bench in Kumaran found no illegality or error committed by the Tribunal in adopting dictum contained in Valsa.

27. In Kumaran the Division Bench concluded that, when there is a certainty with respect to future earnings of the deceased, if he/she would have been alive, the Tribunal shall not shut its eyes with respect to such certainties. Therefore, when there is clear evidence with respect to the date or year of retirement of the deceased on attaining superannuation, it cannot be contended that the Tribunal should adopt the same rate of earning also for the period of post retirement. The considerable reduction in the income, which would definitely fall in the life of the deceased after attaining superannuation if he she would have been alive, is a factor which may be taken note of by the Tribunal. Such specific reason for adopting a different multiplicand for different periods, specifically split up from the entire period of multiplier, is based on reasons available in the evidence on record. Application of split multiplier in such cases with different rates of multiplicand is not illegal or erroneous, nor it run against the dictum contained in the decisions of the Apex Court in Puttamma, Sarala Verma, Madhusudhan and Reshma Kumari.

28. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased, who was aged 54 years, was working as a Head Clerk in the Integrated Fisheries Project, Kochi, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,051/-. As Ext.A20 salary certificate of the deceased was having 3 more years to retire from service on superannuation. His date of retirement was 31.10.2004. The monthly income of the deceased, while in service, has already been fixed in this appeal as Rs.10,051/-, as shown in Ext.A20. Adding 15% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects the monthly income of the deceased, for the purpose of fixing compensation under the head loss of dependency till superannuation, is reckoned as Rs.11,558/- (10,051 + 1,507). His notional monthly income after retirement from service can be taken as Rs.5,025/- (50% of Rs.10,051/-). In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kumaran, the split multiplier of 3 (while in service) and 8 (after retirement from service) can be adopted for assessing the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency.