Point of Law: Without assigning any reasons, compensation towards "loss of dependency" cannot be determined by splitting multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

In these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.1772/2016 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijaypur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

2. M.F.A.No.200165/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company. M.F.A.No.201674/2019 is by the petitioners claiming enhancement of compensation.

3. The parties will be referred with respect to their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. Briefly stated the facts are that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2, 3 and 4 are the children of Yashawant Dafale, the deceased. On 21.10.2016, as a pillion rider of a motor cycle bearing No.MH-13/CG-9355, the deceased met with an accident, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to said injuries on the next day.

5. The petitioners approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.57,00,000/-. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.35,61,000/-. Pleading inadequacy of compensation, the petitioners are before this Court whereas, the Insurance Company contending that the principle of 'split multiplier' ought to have been adopted, tax component ought to have been deducted and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the matter, has come before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments of Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that while calculating the income, the Tribunal ought to have considered future prospects of the deceased and inadequate compensation has been awarded on the conventional heads and he urged for re-assessment of materials and enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident, he had only six years of service. The applicable multiplier is 11', but it ought to have been split in such a way that 6' should be applied for the full salary and 5' for the pension. It is also contended that though the tax component in the income has not been excluded and that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Though learned counsel initially contended about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, at a later stage, he gave up that contention.

9. We have perused the impugned judgment. The Tribunal referring to Ex.P15/Service Book ascertained the age of the deceased as 54 years and considered the income at Rs.35,000/-, he was permanently employed as a Conductor in MSRTC. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses and applied 11' multiplier and determined the loss of dependency at Rs.34,65,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife, Rs.10,000/- each towards love and affection to the minor children, Rs.10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and Rs.16,080/- towards treatment.

10. As we notice, the tax component, i.e., professional tax at Rs.200/- and TDS of 10% towards income tax i.e., Rs.3,700/- was not excluded from salary of Rs.35,000/- drawn by the deceased. The Tribunal did not consider the said aspect, which requires to be rectified in the instant appeal.

11. Now the issue is regarding whether the principle of 'split multiplier' is applicable to this case or not. In this regard, both side Advocates put forth their contentions.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon an unreported judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us presided, in the matter of The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijayalaxmi and Others in M.F.A.No.200348/2018 (MV) DD 21.07.2022. While discussing the application of split multiplier, it was held that applying the principle of 'split multiplier' ran counter to the judgment in National Insurance Company L