JUDGMENT : PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.09.2014 and made in M.C.O.P.No.384 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims (Sub-Court), Kulithalai.) 1. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. Challenging the award, dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.384 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kulithalai, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is filed. 2. In the said M.C.O.P, the claimants, who are the respondents 1 to 4 herein, have made the claim as compensation for the death of one Sakthivel, who died in the accident that occurred on 28.03.2011. The respondents 1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. 3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 28.03.2011, when the deceased-Sakthivel was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 K 2152, on the extreme left side of the road from Perambalur to Duraiyur, from east to west, near Krishna Petrol Bunk, Thuraiyur, a Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 25 V 1314, belonged to the fifth respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company was parked in the above mentioned road without any indicating lights in the back side of the lorry and making any signal and caution. Hence, the deceased Sakthivel dashed behind the Taurus Lorry and was thrown away and sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thuraiyur for treatment, where first aid was given, then he was taken to KMC Hospital, Trichy and treatment was given till his death on 02.04.2011. In this regard, F.I.R was registered against the Driver of the Taurus Lorry in Crime No.145 of 2011 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C on the file of Thuraiyur Police Station. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. 4. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant - Insurance Company has filed counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless act of the deceased and at the time of accident, the deceased and the Driver of the Lorry were not having proper Driving Licence and the quantum of compensation claimed by Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis. 5. 5. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased – Alli was examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the first respondent that the deceased sustained injuries and due to the impact, he died. The Tribunal further held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,05,960/- under various heads. 7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, both on negligence and quantum, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company argued on the point of negligence, a perusal of the award would show that after considering the evidence, the Tribunal had come to the right conclusion that the Driver of the Taurus Lorry was responsible for the accident and directed the appellant/insurer to pay compensation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings on the negligence aspect. 10. With regard to quantum, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was 55 years old and the Tribunal applied multiplier 11' and while computing the compensation, 'split multiplier' has to be adopted as the income will not be the same after retirement from service. In this regard, he relied on the decision in National Insurance Company v. M.Arulmozhi reported in 2014(2) TNMAC 334 and in Reliance GIC v. K.Meena reported in 2015(2) TNMAC 449(DB). 11. In 2014(2) TNMAC 334 referred to supra, it has been held as follows: “Principle of Split Multiplier: 12. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed as Assistant Administrative Officer in Agricultural Department and was earning an income of Rs.17,529/- per month, which is evidenced by Exs.P.6 and P.7 Salary Certificates. From a perusal of Ex.P.6, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.255/- is deducted compulsorily from the salary. Therefore, the deceased was getting a net monthly income of Rs.17,274/-. From a perusal of Ex.P.6, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.255/- is deducted compulsorily from the salary. Therefore, the deceased was getting a net monthly income of Rs.17,274/-. The age of the deceased on the date of accident was 57 years and the multiplier to be adopted is 8, are not in dispute. From the materials available on record, it can be inferred that on the date of accident, the deceased was 57 years and 3 months old and had only 9 months of service before his retirement. Though normally 8 multiplier would be applied in computing the loss of dependency, in this case, the same cannot be done as the income of the deceased will not be the same from the date of retirement. Though the deceased had only 9 months of service, the appellant has got no serious objection to round it of to one year. Accordingly, the period before retirement is taken as one year. Therefore, the loss dependency before retirement of the deceased would be Rs. 17,274/- X 12 X < X 1 = Rs.1,55,466/-. 13. Now, the dependency after the retirement of the deceased is to be considered. Had the deceased Murugesan been alive, after the age of superannuation, he would get only half of the salary as pension. Therefore, it is an exceptional case where the split multiplier has to be adopted, ie., 1 + 7 = 8. As there is no scope for evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased and since the earning would be reduced to 50% after retirement, the multiplier of 8 as adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court feels that split multiplier can be adopted and as such, after superannuation, 7 multiplier would apply. Therefore, the loss of dependency from pensionary benefits would be Rs.8,637/- X 12 X < X 7 = Rs.5,44,131/-.” 12. In 2015(2) TNMAC 449(DB) referred to supra, it has been held as follows: “19. It is significant to note here that in so far as the deceased is concerned, the age of superannuation is 58 years. Since he had died at the age of 47, 11 years of service was left over. The Tribunal had therefore, as per the split multiplier method, multiplied the entire annual dependency of the family at first with 11 years. 20. Since he had died at the age of 47, 11 years of service was left over. The Tribunal had therefore, as per the split multiplier method, multiplied the entire annual dependency of the family at first with 11 years. 20. As observed in the foregoing paragraph, the remaining two (11 + 2 = 13) was multiplied with the 50% of the annual dependency of the family. 21. The calculation of split multiplier has been detailed as under: a. After deducting the 10% of income tax from the annual dependency of Rs.2,20,824/-, the remaining balance would be Rs.2,14,742/-. Since the deceased had to maintain his family consisting of five members, the Tribunal had allowed 1/4th deduction towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the 3/4 remainder would be Rs.1,61,057/-. Then, the life dependency of the family would be Rs.17,71,627/-(Rs.1,61,057 X 11). For the remaining two years, 50% of the annual income of Rs.2,14,742/- has to be multiplied with 2. Then, the 50% of annual income for two years would be Rs.2,14,742/- (Rs.1,07,371/- X 2). Therefore, the life dependency for 11 years would be Rs.17,71,627/- and for the remaining two years would be Rs.2,14,742/-. In total, the pecuniary loss of the family would come to Rs.19,86,369/-.'' 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants argued that the Tribunal applied correct multiplier and there is no need to adopt 'split multiplier' in this case and he relied on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. B.Shanmugathai and two others(C.M.A(MD)No.1054 of 2018, dated 23.11.2018), wherein it has been held as follows: “10. The Tribunal has taken only 75% of the salary of the deceased for the purpose of arriving the amount towards loss of income. The multiplier adopted is “11”. Split Multiplier cannot be adopted in this case for the following reason. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact. The deceased was employed as Office Assistant and therefore, he would have been gainfully employed even after his retirement.” 14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants is not acceptable as we cannot presume that one can be gainfully employed even after his retirement and it would be appropriate to apply 'split multiplier' in this case. The deceased was employed as Office Assistant and therefore, he would have been gainfully employed even after his retirement.” 14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants is not acceptable as we cannot presume that one can be gainfully employed even after his retirement and it would be appropriate to apply 'split multiplier' in this case. Since the deceased was aged 55' years old, the multiplier would be 3 + 7' and the loss of income should be calculated as follows: Loss of Income upto 58 years: The monthly income of the deceased as per the salary certificate is Rs.24711/- by adding 10% future prospects ie., Rs.2471.10 ps, it would be Rs.27,182.10 ps - and the annual income would be Rs.3,26,185.20 ps., by deducting 10% towards income tax ie., Rs.32,618.52 ps, it would be Rs.2,93,566.68 ps., and therefore, future loss of income upto 58 years would be Rs.8,80,700.04 ps ( Rs.293566.68 X 3) and after deducting ¼th amount towards personal expenses ie. Rs.2,20,175.01, it would be Rs.6,60,525.03 ps. Loss of income after retirement: 50% of last drawn monthly salary including future prospects would be Rs.13591.05 ps (Rs.27182.10/2) and the annual loss of income would be Rs.1,63,092.60 ps., and the multiplier applicable after retirement is “8” (11-3) and therefore, annual loss of income would be Rs.13,04,740.80 ps., after deducting ¼th amount towards personal expenses, it would be Rs.9,78,555.60 (Rs.13,04,740.80 – Rs. 3,26,185.20). 15. Therefore, the total loss of income would be Rs.16,39,080.63/- Rs.6,60,525.03 + Rs.9,78,555.60), rounded off to Rs.16,39,081/- . 16. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and for loss of love and affection, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the claimants 2, 3 and 4, which is very meagre. As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram & Others., reported in 2018 (1) TN MAC 452 (SC), a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the wife/first claimant and Rs.1,20,000/-(Rs.40,000/- each) to the respondents 2 to 4/claimants 2 to 4. 17. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which needs interference and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal, for loss of life estate and for transportation charges and therefore, a sum of rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'Loss of Life Estate' and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards “Transportation Charges” . No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal, for loss of life estate and for transportation charges and therefore, a sum of rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'Loss of Life Estate' and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards “Transportation Charges” . 18. Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of income 24,45,960 16,39,081/- reduced 2. Loss of consortium to the first respondent 20,000/- 40,000/- enhanced 3. Loss of love of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 4 30,000/-(each 10,000) Rs.1,20,000/- enhanced 4. Funeral Expenses 10,000 25,000 enhanced 5. Loss of Life Estate Nil 15,000 awarded 6. Transportation Expenses Nil 10,000 awarded Total Rs.25,05,960/- Rs.18,49,081/- Reduced by Rs.6,56,879/- 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows: (i) The Award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.18,49,081 /- from Rs.25,05,960/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed. (iii) The Award amount is apportioned as per the award of the Tribunal. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount together with accrued interest and costs to the credit of claim petition, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) The Tribunal is directed to refund the excess award amount, if any, to the appellant-Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition. (vi) The respondents 1, 2 and 4/claimants 1, 2 and 4, are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with proportionate interest and cost. The share of the minor claimant/second respondent is permitted to be kept in any of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority and the guardian / first respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three months. No costs.