IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the application of a uniform multiplier based on the deceased's age is essential in compensation claims, and the split multiplier approach is only valid when justified by specific circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(Easwaran S., J.) :

Can the Tribunal adopt and apply split multiplier while deciding the claim for compensation and whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier, ignoring the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court are the questions posed before this Court in this appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam.

2. The facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-On 11.06.2018, at 09.05 am, the 1st respondent in OP(MV) No. 599 of 2018 was driving the school bus bearing registration No.KL-50/D-8891. He reversed the vehicle negligently at a place Natamalika, and hit Mr. Kulasekharan, S/o Thimmayyan and thereby he sustained grievous injuries and further succumbed to the injuries. The claim was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased. The Insurance Company appeared and contested the claim and contented that the claim amount in the petition was highly excessive and exaggerated. However, the policy in respect of Vehicle No.KL-50/D-8891 was admitted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the 1st respondent was driving the school bus bearing registration No.KL-50/D-8891 in a rash and negligent manner thereby caused the accident?

2. Whether deceased Kulaseskharan died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and if so whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as claimed?

3. if so, what is the quantum to be awarded?

4. Reliefs and costs?

3. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the parties by the respondents. PW1 and PW2 were examined from the claimant’s side. After considering the evidence on record and also the rival pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam allowed the claim, however, substantially limiting the claim of the appellants. Hence the appeal.

4. I have heard Adv.Pooja K.S. learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Rinu S. Aswan, assisted by Sri. Bencilal B.S, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the award passed by the Tribunal limiting the compensation claimed by the appellants is erroneous and hence liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate power. She also pointed out that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was completely erroneous and against the various settled principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. She placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in P.O. Meera & Anr. V Ananda P.Naik & Ors (2022 (1) KHC 591) to contend for the proposition that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal should have been 13, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 50 years and 15 days at the time of the death. She further pointed out that based on the judgment in the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the multiplier for persons between 46-50 age should have been taken as 13. Since the deceased had only crossed 15 days on attainment of the age of 50, it cannot be assumed that the deceased was 51 years old. She further pointed out that the split multiplier taken by the Tribunal because the deceased was due to retire at the age of 56 was also improper. In support of her contentions, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Valsa and Others v. Ulahannan Thomas and Others [2015 (1) KHC 729] is placed reliance on.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is pointed out that the deceased was aged 50 years and 15 days and therefore, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 51. Hence, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is perfectly correct. According to the learned counsel, the compensation awarded was just and proper hence no interference at the hands of this Cou