Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would further submit that the Tribunal, after recording a finding that the deceased Rajan was aged 52 years, has failed to adopt split multiplier, that the Tribunal, without any basis, has awarded Rs.32,82,180/- for loss of dependency, which is highly excessive and out of proportion and that therefore, the total compensation awarded is liable to be interfered with.

2) Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation without invoking split multiplier method, even after giving a finding that the deceased Rajan was aged 52 years at the time of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis accident and was working in State Transport Corporation?
3) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law?

23. Now turning to the quantum of compensation, the main objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent is that the Tribunal, after fixing the age of the deceased at 52 years, has failed to apply the split multiplier. It is necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Valli and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and disapproved the application of split multiplier and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

24. A Division Bench of this Court in The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Karur Vs. Kalyani and others in C.M.A. (MD)No.452 of 2019 dated 28.02.2023, relying on the judgment of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Hon'ble Supreme Court, has also disapproved the application of the split multiplier and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

“6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the error in fixing the salary of the deceased person and the multiplier applied needs to be interfered. However, the claim of the Insurance Company that split multiplier should be applied since the deceased is salaried Government servant and he is supposed to retire of attaining superannuation within a period of three years is not tenable in view of the Suprement Court judgment which has disapproved applying split multiplier.”