Abdul Rehim, J:

The claimants in OP (MV) No.1715/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. When the appeal came up for admission, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company entered appearance through Senior Counsel Sri. Mathews Jacob. We heard counsel for the appellants as well as the Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. accident, and hence held that the 3rd respondent insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,27,980/- along with interest at 9% per annum. In the appeal the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation, mainly disputing the method of computation adopted for determining compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.

3. The deceased at the time of death was working as a Drawing Teacher in the Government Boys High School, Wadakkancherry. From Ext.A11 Certificate it is proved that she was drawing a net salary of Rs.17,933/- per month. From the records it was revealed that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of death and was left with a service of 4 more years, till her retirement, which is at the age of 56 years. The Tribunal found that the correct multiplier to be adopted in the case is 11. But taking note of the deduction in the extent of income after her retirement, a split multiplier was adopted. For the period of 4 years left in her service, the full salary was adopted for determining the multiplicand. For the remaining period of 7 years, the multiplicand was fixed by adopting 50% of the salary, observing that if she would have alive she will be entitled only for a monthly pension, which will only be half of the salary.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that adoption of a split multiplier method is illegal. In this regard he relied on a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma and others V. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another (2014 (1) KLT 738) (SC). The hon'ble Supreme Court observed therein that, in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal should not apply any split multiplier in a routine course and should apply the multiplier applicable as per decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari V. Madan Mohan (2013 (2) KLT 304)(SC). In support of the above proposition the hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on an earlier decision in Madhusudhan V. Administrative Officer and another (2011 (1) KLT SN 98) (Case No.136) (SC). In the said case the split multiplier adopted by the High Court was reversed on observing that, the High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal, without disclosing any reasons thereof. In Madhusudhan's case (cited supra) the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal was reduced to 6 by the High Court, without specifying any reasons.

5. We are of the considered opinion that in both the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court, in Madhusudhan's case (cited supra) as well as in Puttamma's case (cited supra), the dictum laid is only to the effect that in the absence of any specific reasons and availability of evidence on record, split multiplier should not be adopted in a routine course and the multiplier as specified in Sarala Verma's case (cited supra) which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari's case (cited supra) shall be adopted. But in the case at hand the specific reason mentioned for adopting different multiplicands for different periods within the multiplier of 11 years is based on evidence available and the reasoning mentioned thereof is well founded. In a recent decision of a Division Bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Valsa (2015 (1) KLT 781) it was held that, while fixing the compensation a balancing of all essential factors, including disadvantages will have to be adopted by the court. I