JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.2057 of 2015, dated 31.01.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /VI Additional District Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.39,79,213/- with interest and costs to the respondents / claimants for the death of Radhakrishnan, consequent to an accident occurred on 29.07.2015, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/Insurer has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent / owner- cum- rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-67-AB-3310 and the consequent joint and several liability mulcted on the respondents

1 and 2 which includes the second respondent/Insurer.

5. The learned Counsel for the Insurer would submit that the deceased was a Government servant and he got only 6 more years of service at the time of accident, that the Tribunal should have adopted service multiplier for assessing the loss of income, but wrongly applied multiplier “11” for calculating the loss of income and that the trial Court erred in not applying the split multiplier method, taking note of the remaining service period of the deceased.

6. No doubt, the appellant/Insurer in the grounds of appeal itself has quoted some of the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it was held that while calculating the loss of income for a Government servant, split multiplier should be applied. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Jayasree and Others Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2021 SC 5218, has held that the split multiplier should not be applied in a routine course and should only apply multiplier as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, as affirmed in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and another reported in (2013)9 SCC 65 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:

“23. In Sarla Verma MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has held that while calculating the compensation, the courts should take into consideration not only the actual income at the time of the death but should also make additions by taking note of future prospects. It was further held that though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid disparate yardsticks being applied or disparate methods of calculation being adopted. 24. In Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. MANU/SC/0287/2013 : (2013) 9 SCC 65, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has approved the judgment in Sarla Verma MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121. 25. In Pranay Sethi MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has not only approved the aforesaid observations made in Sarla Verma MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC

121 but also held as under:

59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 t