The application of the multiplier method for calculating compensation and the reasonableness of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 29.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.39 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated 29.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.39 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are claimants 1 to 3. The fourth respondent herein is the first respondent in the claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 26.06.2016, at about 8.45 pm, the deceased was walking near Chatrareddiapatti along the service road. At that time, a TVS XL Super Heavy Duty two wheeler bearing registration number TN 58 AY 6593 that belong to the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. He died on the spot itself. The petitioners are his dependants and they claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:

The accident in question did not take place in the manner as alleged in the petition. When the rider of the two wheeler was nearing Tamilnadu Housing Board Colony, the pedestrian who was walking in front of the two wheeler, suddenly crossed the road without noticing the vehicle. Though, the vehicle was slow down, the pedestrian could not control himself due to old age and he dashed against the two wheeler, fell down and sustained injuries. The pedestrian was solely responsible for the accident and the rider of the two wheeler was not responsible. The rider of the vehicle was not having valid driving license and since the policy conditions are violated, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The age, income, occupation of the deceased are all denied. The claim under various heads is highly excessive. The petitioners are not the dependants of the deceased.

4. Four (4) witnesses were examined and twenty two (22) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Three(3) witnesses were examined and five(5) documents were marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.28,84,500/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the second respondent preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was 56 years old and he was having only two years of service only. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 9. The Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier for two years service period and multiplier 7 after superannuation.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has applied split multiplier method in a judgment reported in 2011 (1) TNMAC 169, in the case of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs M.Raju and others, taken into account, the period of service till the date of superannuation.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that in a case reported in 2010(1) TNMAC 415 in the case of The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance company Ltd., vs Valliammal and others, this Court has applied split multiplier method in fixing compensation.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 481 (SC) in the case of Puttamma and others vs K.L.Narayana Reddy and another, has stated that in exceptional cases, split multiplier method has to be adopted. The relevant portion is as follows:

"34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply Split Multiplier in routine course and should apply Multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kum