The court reaffirmed that split multipliers for compensation calculations are impermissible unless exceptional reasons are recorded, thus enhancing the total compensation based on the standard multiplier method.

JUDGMENT

The claimants in OP(MV) No.1700/2017 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The claimants filed the petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , stating that on 02.06.2017 at 8 p.m., while the victim Johny Joseph, who was the husband of 1^st claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3, was walking along MC road, Carithas Bhagom, he was knocked down by a car bearing registration No.KL-05-AQ-544. Victim suffered serious injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by R1, who was the owner cum driver of the car. R2 is the insurer of the vehicle.

3. R1 filed written statement in the O.P, contending that there was no negligence on his part and also stating that the car had valid insurance policy. It was also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive.

4. The insurance company filed written statement admitting the policy but contended that the amounts claimed under all heads are exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 marked on the side of the claimants and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents.

6. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.37,45,940/- with interest at 9% per annum.

7. Admittedly, the victim Johny Joseph met with a motor vehicle accident on 02.06.2017 at 8 p.m at M.C Road, Carithas Bhagom. It is also not in dispute that while he was walking along the road the car bearing registration No.KL-05-AQ-544 driven by R1 knocked down him and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the car. It is also not in dispute that the offending car bearing registration No.KL-05-AQ-544 had a valid insurance coverage.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that for assessing compensation under the head loss of dependency, the Tribunal applied split multiplier contrary to the well settled principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.

9. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand, contended that the deceased, who was an employee of Mahathma Gandhi University had only 13 months left for superannuation and therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in applying split multiplier.

10. In Maya Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 266], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in normal course, the compensation is to be calculated by applying the multiplier, as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(6)SCC 121] and it was further held that split multiplier cannot be applied unless specific reasons are recorded.

11. In Preetha Krishnan and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC

2365] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

“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 evidently clear from what stood observed by this Court in Sumathi v. National Insu