JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition, being MACP No.162 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the appellants herein and awarded an amount of Rs.10,62,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization as compensation.

2. The Brief facts leading to the case are as follows:

2.1 It is alleged that on 27.04.2013, the deceased was travelling in jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-13-G-1249, driven by the respondent No.5. At about 06:00 p.m., when the said jeep was near Vana, it met with an accident with a dumper bearing Registration No.GJ-13-AT-0789 which was coming from the opposite direction and being driven at excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the dumper driver.

2.2 The appellants preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with respect to the death of deceased- Jyotindrabhai Ichchhashanker. Upon issuance of summons, the respondents appeared and contested the claim petition.

2.3 The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants herein and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,62,000/- along with 9% interest per annum.

2.4 Aggrieved the appellants herein have filed the present First Appeal.

3. Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the just and proper compensation in the present case. She submits that the learned Tribunal has divided the claim for compensation in two parts i.e. pre-retirement and post-retirement in the case of the deceased. She submits that though the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was about 54 years, he would have continued to work after retirement, and therefore, there was an error in calculating the income as well as the future prospect income of the deceased. She further submits that even the compensation granted under the conventional heads is inadequate and ought to be enhanced.

4. She, therefore, submits that in the present case, the income should not be split pre and post retirement and should be calculated on singular multiplier basis. In support of her contentions, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Valli and Ors. Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 107, wherein it has been held that only one multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, Ms.Kirti Pathak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.G.C. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.6 jointly submit that in the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects and arrived at the just and proper compensation. They submit that admittedly the deceased was 54 years of age, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier pre and post retirement to come at an appropriate calculation with respect to the income of the deceased. They submit that this Hon’ble Court as well as various other High Courts have adopted the split multiplier i.e. multiplier up to the date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement to arrive at just and proper compensation. They submit that in view thereof, no interf