IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death in motor accident – Age of deceased is criterion to be utilized for Multiplier – It does not provide for any other possibilities.
(2) Slit Multiplier is a concept foreign to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of compensation – Income as on date of death is to be taken to calculate compensation.
(3) Superannuation from service hardly qualifies as such an exceptional circumstance, which would justify use of split multiplier – It is only a natural progression that a person who enters service must also exit at some point in time.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 28th June 2024, passed in MACA No.210 and 1219 of 2015; and Judgment and order dated 27.11.24 in R.P.Nos.1165 and 1187 of 2024 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which, in turn, were preferred against the order dated 2nd April 2014 in O.P. (M.V.) No.1105/2012, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala [Hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’].

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 3rd August 2012, the deceased, namely, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51 years, was driving his car, bearing registration No.KL-5/M-1062 through the Pala-Thodupuzha Road. A bus bearing registration No.KL-38/B-1833, driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the car of the deceased. As a result of the incident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on his way to the hospital.

4. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant- appellants (the wife and children of the deceased) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, on 11th December 2012 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/-, stating therein that the deceased used to earn Rs.47,860/- per month, by working as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department.

5. The Tribunal vide its order dated 2nd April 2014, awarded an amount of Rs.44,04,912/- to the claimant-appellants along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, determined the income of the deceased to be Rs.45,408/- per month (post deduction of Rs.2,453/- per month payable as taxes). Since the deceased was aged 51 years, future prospects of 15% was applied to his income. A deduction of 1/4th of the income was made towards living expenses and a multiplier of 9 (considering the facts that one of the petitioners is a government employee and other is a doctor) was applied. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection; and Rs.5000/- for loss of estate.

6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer as well as the claimant-appellants filed MACA Nos. 210 of 2015 and 1219 of 2015 respectively, before the High Court.

7. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeals and reduced the compensation under the head of loss of dependency from Rs.42,29,712/- to Rs.35,10,144/-, by applying a split multiplier considering the post-retirement reduction in the income of the deceased, thereby deducting the excess amount of Rs.7,19,568/-. The Court further enhanced the compensation under the heads - loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to Rs.1,60,000/-. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses was reduced to Rs.15,000/-, while the amount under the head loss of estate was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The High Court also directed the Tribunal to disburse the amount to claimant-appellants Nos.1 to 4 (Appellants in MACA No. 1219 of 2015) in the ratio of 70:10:10:10.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the claimant-appellants filed RP No.1165 of 2024 arising from MACA No.210 of 2015 and RP No.1187 of 2024 arising from MACA No.1219 of 2015. The High Court, however, rejected these applications for review, stating that if reasons are recorded, split multiplier would be possible.

9. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 28th June 2024 and final orders passed in RP Nos.1165 of 2024 and 1187 of 2024 by the High Court, the claimant-appellants are now before us.

10. The point of challenge taken is that the High Court erred in applying split multipl