The main legal point established in the judgment is the adoption of a split multiplier method for the computation of loss of dependency and the court's discretion to enhance the amounts awarded under different heads based on the specific circumstances of the case.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. The second respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 167/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the appellant herein, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive. The petitioners/claimants 1 to 3 before the Tribunal, had filed Cross-Objection seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded.

2. In the accident in question, which occurred on 11.10.2008, the deceased sustained very serious injuries to which he had succumbed to death on 27.10.2008. With respect to the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is insured with the appellant and hence the appellant is liable to pay the amount of compensation, there is no dispute in the appeal. The only challenge of the appellant is that the amount awarded under different heads are excessive and that the tribunal had awarded litigation cost, erroneously. The cross-objector is contending that the amount awarded under various heads are inadequate and insufficient.

3. The deceased was working as a Ration Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department of the State Government. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 14,006/- at the time of his death. He left behind his wife, two minor children and aged mother as dependants. Subsequently, during pendency of the claim petition, the 4th petitioner/claimant who is the mother of the deceased died. The Tribunal found that, as evidenced from Ext.A14, the salary of the deceased would have been enhanced to Rs. 22,856/- with effect from 1.7.2009, had he been alive. On the basis that the deceased was aged 50 years and 11 months, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 11. Taking his monthly income as Rs. 22,856/- compensation for loss of dependency was calculated, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The appellant herein is mainly assailing the method adopted by the Tribunal for computing the compensation for loss of dependency. It is contended that, the Tribunal went erred in accepting the future monthly salary as the basis. It is also contended that the Tribunal went wrong in accepting the multiplier of 11, without considering the fact that the deceased would have retired at the age of 55 years and there was only four years service left for him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Cross-Objector contended that, adoption of Rs. 22,856/- as monthly salary is on the basis of the convincing evidence produced through Ext.A14 certificate. It is further contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and it ought to have been 13, based on the fact that the deceased had not completed 51 years as on the date of death. It is further contended that the deduction made on account of personal expenses ought to have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd , since the number of dependants left at the time of death was 4, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC).

4. While considering the rival contentions on the aspect of computation of the loss of dependency, we find merit in the arguments raised on either side. It is true that the Tribunal went wrong in accepting the future salary as the basis. Instead the Tribunal ought to have considered the salary as on the date of death and addition should have been made towards future prospects. Going by the dictum in Sarla Varma's case (supra) and in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (3) KHC 212 we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have added 50% towards future prospects.

5. Considered on the above said basis, the monthly income of the deceased should have been adopted as Rs. 21,009/- (14006 + 50%). Even though the 4th petitioner/claimant died during pendency of the claim petition, it is to be held that the deceased had left behind 4 dependants at the time of his death. The correct deduction ought to have been made is 1/4th of the monthly income, which is computed as a