R. Subramanian, J.

The claimants who were favoured with an award for a sum of Rs. 28,64,024/- for the death of one Manoharan who died in a motor accident that occurred on 16.08.2011 at about 21.05 hours are the appellants. They seek enhancement of compensation.

2. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar motorbike bearing registration No. TN-33-AP-9238. The claimants would contend that when the said Manoharan along with his wife and daughter was crossing the road after taking all precautions, the rider of the motor cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the said Manoharan and his daughter. Due to the grievous injuries sustained, the said Manoharan died on the same day at about 23.30 hours. The claimants would further contend that the said Manoharan was employed in Southern Railways and was earning about Rs. 43,000/- per month. Contending that the sudden death of Manoharan had left the family in shatters, the claimants would seek a compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent contending that there was no negligence on his part. According to him, it was the deceased who suddenly crossed the road in a prohibited area which resulted in the accident.

4. The Insurance Company also filed a counter contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. The Insurance Company would also deny the particulars of employment, income and age of the deceased.

5. While the legal representatives of Manoharan filed MCOP.No.4572 of 2011 seeking compensation for his death the 2nd claimant in MCOP.No.4572 of 2011 filed MCOP. No. 4903 of 2011 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by her.

6. The Tribunal on examination of the evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler. In coming to the said conclusion the tribunal relied upon, Ex.P1, the FIR and Ex.P2, the sketch. The Tribunal also took note of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the two-wheeler which has been marked as Ex.P3. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of RW1, the driver of the two-wheeler inasmuch as the charge sheet was also filed against him.

7. On quantum, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 28,64,024/. In arriving at the said quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased was a railway employee and he was aged about 54 years at the time of the accident and he had only five years of service left. Taking the multiplier at "11", the Tribunal worked out the loss of pecuniary benefits on the basis of the salary for a period of five years and for the remaining period of six years the Tribunal worked out the loss of pecuniary benefits at the assumed pension that would be drawn by the deceased.

8. It is this split multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal which is very seriously challenged by Mr. Suryanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the insurance Company also.

9. Admittedly, the deceased was working as an accountant in Southern Railways and earning a sum of Rs. 42,197/- per month as salary at the time of the accident. The Tribunal added 15% towards future prospects, and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal also deducted 20% of Rs. 3,96,124/- being the income tax payable by the deceased. On such working the Tribunal arrived at the yearly loss of dependency at Rs. 3,44,600/-. Applying a multiplier of "5" the Tribunal worked out the pecuniary loss upto the date of retirement of the deceased at Rs. 17,23,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal took the pension at 50% of the salary drawn at Rs. 22,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at the monthly loss of dependency at Rs. 14,667/-, adopting the multiplier o