IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – In normal course, compensation is to be calculated by applying multiplier and not split multiplier – Any deviation from same warrants special reasons to be recorded.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Bindal, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2019¹[MA No. 568 of 2015] passed by the High Court²[High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior] in a motor accident case³[Claim Case No. 65 of 2014]. The Tribunal⁴[First Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Dist. Gwalior (M.P.)] awarded compensation of Rs.28,66,994/- under various heads along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. However, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.19,66,833/- observing that the deceased was to remain in service only for another 02 years and thereafter would have retired. Split method for calculation of dependency was applied.

3. The facts on record are that on 07.03.2014 at about 03.00 p.m., Laxman Das Mahour (deceased) was travelling with his son Jugal Kishore, on a bus. After getting off the bus, he was walking on the road when the offending bus bearing Registration No. MP-06/B-1725 dashed against him. Tragically, Laxman Das succumbed to his injuries at the scene of the accident. The appellants are the family of the deceased, who filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the owner and the driver of the offending bus did not appear despite service, hence, were proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent/Insurance Company challenged the claim of the appellants by, inter alia, denying the negligence of the bus driver and disputing the income earned by the deceased.

5. After considering the materials produced by the parties in evidence, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.28,66,994/-. The details thereof are as under:

with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

6. Aggrieved against the award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court partially allowed the same and reduced the compensation under the head of loss of dependency by bifurcating the period for which the deceased would have remained in service and post-retirement. The amount of consortium payable to the widow was reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The total amount of compensation assessed by the High Court was Rs.19,66,833/-. The details thereof are as under:

with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the claimants are before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has committed grave error in reducing the amount of compensation admissible to them under the head of loss of dependency. The High Court has applied a novel method of splitting the income of pre and post-retirement, as a result of which the amount of compensation which the appellants are entitled to was considerably reduced. The appellants are entitled to compensation on account of loss of income as opined by the Tribunal and in addition are entitled to 15% increase on account of future prospects considering the age of the deceased. The Tribunal had rightly assessed the loss of income to the family but had failed to grant compensation on account of loss of estate in terms of Constitution bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 INSC 1068.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the respondent submitted th