J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”.

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 05.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.

3.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Elango, who died in the accident that took place on 16.01.2016.

4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.26,18,333/- as compensation to the appellants.

5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to see that split multiplier can be adopted only for specific reason and evidence on record. The split multiplier cannot be applied in a routine manner. The Tribunal failed to consider that deceased could have been gainfully employed after his retirement and would have received income equivalent to the salary which he was receiving while he was in service. The deceased was aged 59 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has not granted any future prospects. The deceased worked as Development Officer in LIC and there is ample scope for him to work as an agent in LIC and he would have earned equivalent earning while he was in service. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for applying split multiplier method, the facts and circumstances of the case must be considered and there is no straight jacket formula for the application of split multiplier and prayed for allowing the appeal.

6(a).In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the following judgments:

(i)A judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2960 of 2018, [Radha Sagayamary and others Vs. Marimuthu and another], wherein this Court at paragraph Nos.8 & 9 held as follows:

“...8. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 652 (DB) [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Venkateswari and others, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma (cited supra), in paragraph 24 held as follows:-

“24. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company would speak about the split Multiplier concept. However, in the Judgement rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another, 2014(1) TN MAC 481 (SC), at paragraph 34, it has been held that “We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply Split Multiplier in routine course and should apply Multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, 2013 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC).”

9. In the judgment reported in 2013(2)

TNMAC 113(DB), the deceased was Assistant Special Grade Officer in University, the possibility of being employed after retirement was considered. In the present case, the deceased was working as a male attender trained in dealing with mentally retarded persons and he could have got a job even after his retirement and get the same salary. The Tribunal failed to consider the possibility of deceased getting a job after retirement and getting decent salary. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division bench of this Court referred to above and th