1. MFA No. 101225 of 2019 has been preferred by the appellant insurer whereas MFA CROB No. 100087 of 2019 has been preferred by the appellants - claimants, both challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned XI Addl. Distt. Judge & AMACT, Belagavi in MVC No. 1 of 2018 dated 27.11.2010.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though these cases are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

3. The facts in brief as contended by the petitioners before the trial court are that on 25.9.2017 at about 8.15 p.m. Sangamesh Shivappa Kolhar was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. KA 22 - X 4799 from Central Bus Stand towards Hanuman Nagar along with his wife as a pillion, on the left side of the road. When they reached on Belagavi - Khanapur Road near Chennamma Circle, a lorry bearing registration No. HR 55 - M 6642 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the motor cycle on which the said Sangamesh was proceeding along with his wife. As a result of the same, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries including the head injury and Sangamesh died on the spot. For having lost her husband and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the claim petition came to be filed.

4. It is further contended by the petitioners that the deceased was hale and hearty and was working as a Gazetted Officer, i.e., Block Education Officer at Nippani and was drawing salary of more than Rs. 60,000 per month. On that count, the dependants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation.

5. Respondent No. 1 appeared before the court and filed his objections denying the contents of the petition. He has further contended that the said vehicle has been insured with the respondent No. 2 and the insurance was valid. Respondent No. 2 also filed separate objections denying the age of the deceased and other particulars. It is further contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. After taking into consideration the objections, the Tribunal has framed the issues.

6. The petitioner No. 1 got herself examined as PW 1 and also got examined an eyewitness as PW 2 and got marked 14 documents. The respondents have not examined any witnesses and only got marked the insurance policy as Exh. R1. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 52,42,062. Challenging the same, the appellant insurer as well as the cross - objectors - claimants are before this court.

7. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the vehicle insured with the appellant insurer. The only point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant insurer is that, since the deceased was working as a Block Education Officer and at the time of accident he was aged about 59 years, in that light, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation by applying split multiplier. In order to substantiate the said contention he has relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Union of India v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar, 2001 ACJ 134 (Karnataka); so also in the case of Arati v. Gouspeer Hussainsab Makandar, MFA Nos. 25007 and 25650 of 2012; decided on 20.1.2014; and another decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithviraj, MFA No. 20727 of 2010; decided on 8.12.2016.

8. It is his consistent stand that deceased was a government servant, who was bound to retire at the age of 60 years and under such circumstances while calculating the loss of dependency for the first one year multiplier has to be applied after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter the retirement benefit must be taken by reducing 50 per cent and after applying the multiplier of 8, the compensation ought to have been assessed. The Tribunal without looking into the said aspect has applied the multiplier of 9 by taking the income at Rs. 67,550 and