The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of split multiplier in motor accident compensation cases should be based on specific reasons and evidence, considering the deceased's age, remaining years of service, potential for salary increment, and promotion.

V.M.Velumani, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award, dated 13.03.2017, made in M.C.O.P.No.1109 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Tirunelveli.

2. In an accident, which occurred on 18.09.2014, at 3.00 p.m. one Kumar died, for which, the wife and children of the deceased have claimed compensation of Rs. 40 Lakhs.

3. The second respondent Insurance Company, with which the Maruthi Alto Car bearing Registration No.TN-37-AW-7392 belonging to the first respondent was insured, filed counter disputing the manner of accident and also contended that the driver of the first respondent did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the amount of compensation claimed under various heads are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Considering the pleadings and both the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal held that the driver of the first respondent was responsible for the accident and also considering the age and nature of work done by the deceased, the Tribunal by applying split multiplier, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,70,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

5. Challenging the application of split multiplier and for enhancement of compensation, the appellants/claimants have come out with the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting split multiplier while awarding compensation. The Tribunal ought to have calculated the loss of income based on the salary received by the deceased at the time of his death and ought to have applied multiplier 9'. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the appellants 2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the following decisions:-

(i) [Saraladevi and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2014) 2 TNMAC 546], wherein at Paragraph 7, it has been held as follows:-

''7. The High Court, after examining the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, has held that as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 2 TNMAC 1 (SC): (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct Multiplier between the age group of 56-60 should have been 9 since the deceased was 58 years at the time of his death. Further, the High Court held that if the actual salary of Rs. 50,809/- is taken into consideration, the annual loss of income of the deceased works out to Rs 6,09,708/- and 10% of the amount is liable to be deducted towards Income Tax deduction. 10% in the sum of Rs 6,09,708/- comes to Rs. 60,970.80 and the same can be rounded off to Rs. 61,000/-. If so, the balance amount works out to Rs. 5,48,708/- (Rs.6,09,708/- minus Rs. 61,000/-), rounded off to Rs. 5,49,000/- as the annual income of the deceased. Hence, annual loss of income could be fixed at Rs. 5,49,000. For the first two years, the Loss of Income would be Rs. 10,98,000/- (Rs.5,49,000 2 years). For the balance 7 years, only 50% annual income has to be taken into consideration as Notional Income, which comes to Rs. 19,21,500/- (Rs.2,74,500/- 7 years). Therefore, the total Loss of Income works out to Rs. 30,19,500/-. Further, the High Court was of the opinion that 1/3rd amount is liable to be deducted towards Personal Expenses of the deceased. If this amount is deducted out of the annual income of the deceased, the balance amount works out to Rs. 20,13,000/- which amounts to a total Loss of Dependency (Rs.30,19,500/- minus Rs. 10,06,500/-). The High Court further held that there is Contributory Negligence on the