Compensation Award Restored – Split Multiplier Method Held Inapplicable. Supreme Court Discards High Court’s Split Multiplier Approach – Compensation Reassessed.

Case Note & Summary

Constitution of India – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation Calculation – Split Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Loss of Dependency.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Appeal against the reduction of compensation by the High Court – Tribunal’s award restored with modification for future prospects. Multiplier Application – The Supreme Court disapproved the High Court’s method of splitting the deceased’s income into pre-retirement and post-retirement phases – Held: Compensation should be calculated based on the standard multiplier method as per Sarla Verma v. DTC and Sumathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Future Prospects – Tribunal and High Court erred in not awarding future prospects – Held: Appellants entitled to a 15% increase in the loss of dependency compensation. Loss of Consortium – Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- in total – Held: Widow and two dependent children entitled to ₹40,000/- each. Final Compensation – Tribunal’s calculation of ₹28,66,994/- restored with modifications – Total amount enhanced to ₹33,03,300/- with interest.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166

Relevant Judgments Cited:

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. DTC, Sumathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy

Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Dependency Calculation – Loss of Consortium – Interest

1. Nature of the Litigation – Appeal against the High Court’s reduction of compensation in a motor accident claim.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – The legal heirs of the deceased sought restoration of the Tribunal’s award, challenging the High Court’s split multiplier method.

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The High Court reduced the compensation from ₹28,66,994/- to ₹19,66,833/- by splitting the deceased’s income into salary and pension periods.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?(a) The Tribunal awarded ₹28,66,994/-(b) The High Court reduced the amount to ₹19,66,833/-(c) The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s method, increased compensation to ₹33,03,300/-

Whether the High Court erred in applying a split multiplier?Whether the appellants are entitled to future prospects?

For the Appellants:The High Court’s approach was erroneous as it deviated from settled law in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.The deceased was a government employee with stable income; future prospects should be considered.

For the Respondents:The deceased was close to retirement, so post-retirement pension should be considered for compensation.

The Supreme Court held that the split multiplier method was incorrectly applied by the High Court.Future prospects at 15% were granted.The total compensation was recalculated and enhanced to ₹33,03,300/- with interest.

Multiplier Should Be Applied Uniformly – Unless special reasons exist, the standard multiplier should be used instead of the split method.Future Prospects Must Be Considered – The deceased’s dependents were entitled to a 15% increase in loss of income compensation.Compensation for Consortium Should Be Just – Each dependent should receive ₹40,000/-.