JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal at the instance of the original claimant, the limited issue involved is that, whether a multiplier of 5 would be applied in a case where claimant, after receiving the injury, continuing in the service or it should be an application of the regular multiplier, as directed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680].

2. In the claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), the judgment and award passed in MACP No.1068 of 2005 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Vadodara is under challenge.

3. The factual aspects of the case are undisputed. The insurance company did not appeal against the impugned judgment and award, by which the driver, owner and insurance company were held liable to pay the compensation. Thereby, this Court doesn't burden the judgment by regurgitating the facts as well as rewriting the reasons to earmark the liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle to pay the just and fair compensation to the claimants.

3.1 The claimant, who was about 35 years old as per the School Leaving Certificate (Mark-26/1), was serving with the Maghmani Organic Limited at the time of the road accident and was drawing the monthly salary of Rs.5,663/- (Mark-26/8) met with a road accident and sustained multiple injuries, which ultimately resulted into the 60% physical impairment. By putting a purshis at Exhibit-79, on volition, the claimant admitted that his functional abilities reduced by 30% for the body as a whole.

3.2 The insurance company did not object the acceptance of 30% functional disability of the body as a whole. In the aforesaid factual background, the learned Tribunal swayed away by the fact that the after recovering from the injury sustained from the road accident, claimant continued his service with Maghmani Organic Limited, and thereby, he has not suffered any future financial loss or loss of future prospects and thereby, the learned Tribunal remained abstained from granting the regular multiplier available to the claimant as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and adopted a unique method of applying the multiplier of 5 and calculated the compensation of Rs.3,26,795/- by adding some other heads.

3.3 Hence, this appeal at the instance of the claimant.

4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

5. Criticizing the adoption of applying the split multiplier, the Supreme Court recently in the case of Preetha krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 1293 in para 16 to 18 held as under:-

“16. It has been held time and again by this Court that a split multiplier is not to be adopted, as a matter of course, and is only to be used in the exceptional circumstances, with such circumstances being recorded. [See Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. DTC and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121] Reference may be made to N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 14 SCC 712, this Court held that the application of a split multiplier in a case involving a 52-year-old Assistant Professor of Mathematics was not justified. It was observed in reference to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 that the Rule of Thumb of adding 15% of the salary as future prospects in cases where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 was not to be deviated from.

17. Superannuation from service hardly qualifies as such an exceptional circumstance, which would justify the use of split multiplier. It is only a natural progression that a person who enters service must also exit at some point in time. The same cannot be taken as a negative circumstance against the deceased person or a person injured severely, leading to incapacitation or permanent disability. The position, in our considered view, is e