JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 02.09.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.2789/2011, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the present appellant in MFA No.101045/2014 and has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs. 47,61,796/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 2. The appeal in MFA No.24473/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company, which was respondent No.2 in the Tribunal and has sought for setting aside the judgment and award under appeal, whereas MFA No.101045/2014 has been filed by the claimant before the Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. In MFA No.24473/2013, the appellant has taken a contention that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Further, it has failed in applying the split multiplier. Stating that awarding future prospects by the Tribunal is erroneous the appellant has prayed for allowing his appeal. In MFA No.101045/2014, the appellant has stated that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the salary of the deceased in its actuals and that the deceased would have got Rs. 1,03,690/- p.m. at the time of superannuation. Further, stating that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads are also meager, the appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with their rankings they were holding in the Tribunal. 5. Since both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and award, they were clubbed and heard together and marked for passing a common judgment. Perused the materials placed before us. The points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the matter before it? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in not applying the spilt multiplier? (iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires any modification? 6. The claimant in the Tribunal has stated that she is a resident of Bailhongal Taluk of Belagavi District. The Tribunal at Bailhongal has entertained her claim petition. (ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in not applying the spilt multiplier? (iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires any modification? 6. The claimant in the Tribunal has stated that she is a resident of Bailhongal Taluk of Belagavi District. The Tribunal at Bailhongal has entertained her claim petition. It is the contention of the respondent-Insurance Company that Ex.P3 reveals that the claimant was a resident of NGO Colony, Raichur, the accident has taken place in the jurisdiction of Jalahalli and respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle is resident of Tumkur. As such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. No doubt, the claimant has shown her address as resident of NGO Colony, Raichur, District Raichur, but also stated that, presently she is residing at near Head Post, Murtyunjaya Nagar, Bailhongal, Belagavi District. Ex.P3 is not any proof of address, it is only a supplementary statement shown to have given before the police, wherein the claimant is shown to have stated that she was resident of NGO colony at Raichur. However, in the claim petition, the claimant has shown that the said address is her permanent address, but at present she has been residing at Bailhongal Taluk of Belagavi District. In support of the same and to corroborate her evidence, the claimant has produced before the Tribunal a copy of LPG connection pass book at Ex.P16, a copy of her S.B. A/c pass book maintained at Corporation Bank, Bailhongal at Ex.P17, a copy of the Family Progress and Cultivation Project hand book issued to the family of the claimant by Sreekshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project (R) at Ex.P18, and photocopy of SBI A/c pass book of Bailhongal Branch at Ex.P19. All these documents uniformly show the address/place of residence of the claimant as at C/o Kudasomanavar, R/o near Head Post, Murtunjaya Nagar, Bailhongal. These documents and the evidence of P.W.1 in that regard has not been denied or disputed from the respondent's side. As such, it is clear that the claimant is a resident of Bailhongal Taluk and consequentially, the MACT, Bailhongal has got jurisdiction to try the claim petition of the claimant. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company disputing the jurisdiction is not acceptable. 7. As such, it is clear that the claimant is a resident of Bailhongal Taluk and consequentially, the MACT, Bailhongal has got jurisdiction to try the claim petition of the claimant. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company disputing the jurisdiction is not acceptable. 7. MFA No.24473/2013 though filed by the Insurance Company, but it has not disputed the occurrence of the accident on the date, time, place and in the manner as contended by the claimant in her claim petition. The other MFA No.101045/2014 is filed by the claimant herself. As such, the question of occurrence of the accident on the date, time, place and in the manner and also the liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the claimant are not in dispute. As such, these points need not be re-analysed again. 8. The claim petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased Sudershan Gadawal, who is said to have died in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 22.09.2011. The claimant has taken a contention that, at the time of accident her husband being 52 years old working as a Manager in Pragathi Grameena Bank, Gandal Branch, Taluk Devadurga and used to earn a sum of Rs. 49,113/- per month. The Tribunal after accepting the age of the deceased at 52 years and he was working as a Manager in Pragathi Grameena Bank has applied the multiplier 11', which was the multiplier applicable to the age group of 51- 55 years. It is this application of the multiplier for the entire period that has been disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. According to the learned counsel, when the multiplier falls within the date of retirement, spilt multiplier is to be applied. According to him, in the present case, the deceased was aged 52 years as on the date of the accident, the period of his remaining service would be 8 years. Thus, the multiplier falls within the date of retirement and in such a situation, the split multiplier has to be applied, i.e., for the salary drawn deducting Income Tax and Professional Tax, it has to be multiplied with 8' and remaining 3' multiplier has to be taken for the pensionary monthly amount, which the deceased ought to have received. Thus, the multiplier falls within the date of retirement and in such a situation, the split multiplier has to be applied, i.e., for the salary drawn deducting Income Tax and Professional Tax, it has to be multiplied with 8' and remaining 3' multiplier has to be taken for the pensionary monthly amount, which the deceased ought to have received. In his support, the learned counsel relied upon three judgments of the Coordinate Division Benches of this Court, which judgments are: (i) Union of India and Others Vs. K.S.Lakshmi Kumar and Others reported in ILR 2000 KAR 3809; (ii) Smt.Arati and Others Vs. Gouspeer Hussainsab Makandar and Another in MFA No.25007/2012 and connected matter decided on 20.01.2014; and (iii) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri.Prithviraj and Others in MFA No.20727/2010 (MV) and connected matters decided on 08.12.2016. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant in his argument submitted that in Sarla Verma's case since the table has been given prescribing the multiplier, the same multiplier requires to be applied, as such, split multiplier has got no role to play. In this regard, he relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 and in (ii) Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 . 10. In K.S.Lakshmi Kumar's case (supra), the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has made the observation about considering the split multiplier in the following words; "16. Where the multiplier applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with the reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving him surviving his wife and two children, how should the total loss of dependency be calculated? Let us assume that his salary was Rs. 6,000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs. 3,000.00. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be 9'. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. Let us assume that his salary was Rs. 6,000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs. 3,000.00. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be 9'. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one third, the contribution to the family during the period of service (4 years period) would have been Rs. 4,000/- (that is Rs. 6000-2000). But, obviously the contribution to the family would not have been Rs. 4,000/- after his retirement, that is from the 5th year onwards. When the pension is Rs. 3000/- per month, after deducting one third as personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will only to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9 years representing the multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the first four years (when he would have been in service) and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case" 11. Thereafter another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Arati's case (supra) at paragraph No.11 of its Judgment after arriving at a conclusion that the loss of income to the family after the deductions from out of the salary of the deceased would be Rs. 2,000/- per annum, was pleased to observe as below; "11. ................The multiplier applied is 11. It is correct. The deceased was aged 54 years. He would have attained the age of superannuation in 6 years during which period alone, he was entitled to full salary. In which event, the loss of income for the 6 years would be 12,00,000/-. For the remaining 5 years period, if we take 50% of the same as the income of the deceased by way of pension, he would be entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- for the said period. Thus, Rs. 17,00,000/- would be the loss of dependency to the claimants." 12. In Prithviraj's case (supra) another Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court very recently, after analysing the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttamma and others Vs. 5,00,000/- for the said period. Thus, Rs. 17,00,000/- would be the loss of dependency to the claimants." 12. In Prithviraj's case (supra) another Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court very recently, after analysing the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another reported in 2014 ACJ 526 and also a Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Jarina and others Vs. The Principal, KLE Society's Sri B.M.Kankanwadi Ayurved College, Belgaum and another (MFA No.101592/2014) and Connected matters decided on 01.02.2016 and also referring to K.S.Lakshmi Kumar's case (supra), Smt. Arati's case (supra), was pleased to observe at paragraph 20 of its Judgment as below; "20. Therefore, on considering the judgments referred to above what can be noticed very much is that for applying the split multiplier method, reasons must be given. Without assigning any reasons, the compensation towards 'loss of dependency' cannot be determined by splitting the multiplier. In fact, this is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Madhusudhan and in the case of Puttamma, the same has been reiterated." 13. The learned counsel for the claimant in his arguments relied upon Munnalal Jain's case (supra) and drew the attention of this Court at paragraph 13 of its Judgment, which reads as below; "13. In Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC, at para 9, a two-Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in? Step 2. To quote: "(9) xxx xxx xxx Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied upon Reshma Kumari's Case (supra) and drew the attention of this Court to a portion in paragraph 34 of its Judgment, which is as below: "34. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied upon Reshma Kumari's Case (supra) and drew the attention of this Court to a portion in paragraph 34 of its Judgment, which is as below: "34. ........In all other cases of death where the application has been made under section 166, the multiplier as indicated in column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed." 15. It is submitted that in neither of the above two cases the concept of split multiplier was either discussed or considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In order to maintain uniformity, the applicability of multiplier was emphasised upon and more particularly the multiplier as indicated in Sarla Verma's case (supra) was which emphasized upon. By that it cannot be construed that by taking the chart of the multiplier as given in Sarla Verma's case (supra), its application as spilt multiplier cannot be applied in suitable cases. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that, multiplier of 11' for the age of the deceased which was 52 years was taken as per the Sarla Verma's case (supra) only. However, since the said multiplier applicable was higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to his family (loss of dependency), cannot be calculated with reference to the salary income for the entire period of multiplier. As such, the split multiplier is required to be used taking the full salary for the remaining period of service which is 8 years in the instant case for attaining the age of superannuation and for the balance of multiplier 3' is to be applied to the 50% of the salary which is the pension amount which the deceased would have got. 16. The learned counsel for the Insurer in his argument also submitted that, taking the future prospectus at 15% by the Tribunal was also incorrect. No doubt, following the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2017 (Chikkamma and another Vs. Parvathamma and another) the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court generally were not awarding future prospectus. 16. The learned counsel for the Insurer in his argument also submitted that, taking the future prospectus at 15% by the Tribunal was also incorrect. No doubt, following the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2017 (Chikkamma and another Vs. Parvathamma and another) the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court generally were not awarding future prospectus. However, the same was for the reason that that there is no evidence or proof from the claimants side to establish that the deceased had assured future prospectus in his career. However, in the instant case, the claimant as PW-1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was assured of getting 10% increase in the total salary for every year as per the banking salary norms. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that, on an assumption, it can be stated that, in case her husband was alive, at the time of his retirement, he would have got a salary of Rs. 1,03,690/- per month. She has also got produced and marked two documents at Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-21 shown to have been issued by the Chief Manager of the Bank, where the deceased was working, giving the details of the salary of the deceased Sudarshan, till he reaches the superannuation and the actual salary he was drawing. Those documents have not been seriously denied or disputed from the respondents' side. Considering those documents, it is clear that the deceased had future prospectus and assured increment in salary as per the banking norms was also assured. It is in this background, the total monthly salary taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 56,479/- (rounded of to Rs. 56,480/-) cannot be found fault with. After deducting the income tax and 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family was taken at Rs. 4,27,436/- which also cannot be found fault with. Thus, with the said inputs, the computation of compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' would be; 1 Loss of dependency at Rs. 4,27,436 X 8(multiplier) Rs. 34,19,488/ 2 50% of the salary (Rs. 28,240/ per month X 12 (months) X 3 (multiplier) Rs.10,16,640/ 3 Income tax in the compensation amount is not being deducted for the reason, the total annual income from compensation would be within the income tax limit after applicable standard deductions etc., Thus in total Rs. 4,27,436 X 8(multiplier) Rs. 34,19,488/ 2 50% of the salary (Rs. 28,240/ per month X 12 (months) X 3 (multiplier) Rs.10,16,640/ 3 Income tax in the compensation amount is not being deducted for the reason, the total annual income from compensation would be within the income tax limit after applicable standard deductions etc., Thus in total Rs. 44,36,128/- In view of the above, the contention of the claimant for enhancement in the compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' cannot be considered. On the other hand, the Tribunal as contended by the Insurance Company in its appeal, by improper application of the multiplier has awarded higher compensation of a sum of Rs. 47,01,796/- minus Rs. 44,36,128/- = Rs. 2,65,668/-. 17. With regard to the compensation under the conventional heads, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being marginally on the lower side, it deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, under the conventional heads all put together, we propose to award an additional compensation of a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, the total compensation for which the claimants are entitled would be as below: 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 44,36,128/ 2 Compensation granted under the conventional head i.e. Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 60,000/- & enhancement granted Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 45,36,128/- Whereas, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 47,61,796/- which is excess by a sum of Rs. 2,25,668/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.101045/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation does not deserve to be allowed. On the other hand, MFA No.24473/2013 filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded and seeking setting aside of the Judgment and award under appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER MFA No.24473/2013 is allowed in part. The Judgment and award dated 02.09.2013 passed in MVC No.2789/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Bailhongal is modified to the extent that the total quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 47,61,796/- is reduced by a sum of Rs. 2,25,668/- and is fixed at Rs. 45,36,128/- (Rupees Forty Five lakhs thirty six thousand one hundred and twenty eight only). MFA No.101045/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed. MACT, Bailhongal is modified to the extent that the total quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 47,61,796/- is reduced by a sum of Rs. 2,25,668/- and is fixed at Rs. 45,36,128/- (Rupees Forty Five lakhs thirty six thousand one hundred and twenty eight only). MFA No.101045/2014 filed by the claimant is dismissed. The rest of the terms of the award regarding awarding interest, its rate, liability of the respondent/s to pay the awarded compensation and the terms of deposit/release of the amount and awarding the Advocate's fee would all remain unaltered. Draw modified award accordingly.