The main legal point established in the judgment is that a uniform multiplier should be applied in all cases for determining compensation, considering the age of the deceased as the relevant factor.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karur and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.)

DR. ANITA SUMANTH , J

1. This appeal has been filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, challenging order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karur in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2019.

2.The core ground upon which the appeal has been preferred is that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier 11 uniformly in deciding the compensation and instead ought to have adopted split multiplier/service multiplier method. Though some other grounds also figure in the grounds of appeal, this is the only effective ground.

3.The claimants before the Tribunal were the widow and two daughters, one of whom is a minor, of late M.Kanagaraj (deceased). The deceased had been driving a TVS-XL motorcycle on 11.09.2014 on TNPL Road, Velayuthampalayam. While so, he had encountered a lorry driving on the same road, that had shifted suddenly in the middle of the road without any provocation. The motorcycle thus crashed into the lorry and on account of this accident, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized for several months. He passed away on 07.05.2015 aged 53 years.

4.The claimants/respondents in appeal, approached the Tribunal seeking compensation and in the award passed on 04.10.2019, their claim had been accepted, the Tribunal applying multiplier 11 in determining the compensation payable. The computation is as follows:

5.The appeal has been filed only on the aspect of quantification of liability and not at all on liability itself. On the application of the multiplier, Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, who appears for the appellant would fairly draw attention to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Valli and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., [2022 5 SCC 107] that has settled the position that application of split multiplier is not an appropriate method for determining compensation.

6.In the case of Sarala Varma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], it had been held that the proper basis for selection of a multiplier would be the age of the deceased at the time of death and not the number of years left in employment.

7.The above judgment was affirmed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another [2013 (9) SCC 65] and the ratio of both the aforesaid judgments have been are confirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (16) SCC 680], the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“11.Thus, we find that the method of determination of Compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarala Varma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarala Varma approved by this Cou