JUDGMENT : These appeals are directed against the award in OP (MV) No. No.1105 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. MACA No.210 of 2015 is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer challenging the award, as it is excessive in nature and MACA No.1219 of 2015 is filed by the claimants against the very same award, alleging that the award amount is too low. 2. On 03.08.2012, Sri.T.I Krishnan, an Assistant Engineer working in Public Works Department met with a road traffic accident while he was driving his car through Pala-Thodupuzha road. KL-38/B-1833 bus driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his car and he sustained fatal injuries. He breathed his last on his way to hospital. He was aged only 51 and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.47,860/- as on the date of accident. He was survived by his wife and three children. They approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.69 lakh, and learned Tribunal awarded Rs.44,04,912/- which, according to the insurer, is highly excessive and quite inadequate according to the claimants. 3. 1st respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the owner and 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending bus. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent contested the case, but admitted the policy as well as the accident. 4. On analysing the facts and evidence, learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent. So, 2nd respondent/owner was found vicariously liable. Since that vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent, the insurer was found liable to indemnify the insured and thereby to compensate the claimants. 5. In MACA No.210 of 2015 filed by the insurer, the main dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to them, the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal as well as the multiplier applied, are incorrect. The deceased had left only four years of service for his superannuation and so, learned Tribunal could have taken his monthly salary till his retirement only, and thereafter his pension alone could have been taken for determining dependency compensation. Moreover, the wife of the deceased was working as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department and his elder daughter was an MBBS Doctor. Moreover, the wife of the deceased was working as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department and his elder daughter was an MBBS Doctor. So, they could not have been treated as dependants of the deceased, and hence learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/4th. 6. The claimants are assailing the award on the ground that, the compensation awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of love and affection, loss of future income etc., are on the lower side. 7. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned Award warranting interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the insurer (appellant in MACA No.210 of 2015) and learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in MACA No.1219 of 2015). 9. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant in MACA No.210 of 2015 shall be referred as the insurer and the appellants in MACA No.1219 of 2015 shall be referred as the claimants. 10. Admittedly, the deceased was a 51 year old Assistant Engineer, having only four years to retire from service. The grievance of the insurer is that, the Tribunal, ignoring the fact that, the deceased could have obtained salary as per the salary certificate, only till his retirement, applied multiplier of 9 on his annual salary, instead of adopting a split multiplier, i.e. 4 years prior to his retirement and 5 years after his retirement. Moreover, claimants 1 and 2 were employed and they were not dependent on the deceased and therefore, 1/3rd had to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 11. Ext.A11 pay slip of the deceased will show that, at the time of death, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.47,860/-. So, his annual income was Rs.5,74,320/- (47860x12). Ext.A10 IT return of the deceased during the financial year 2011-2012 shows that, he has to pay Rs.2,500/- towards professional tax. During the financial year 2012-2013, he had to pay income tax of Rs.29,182/-, after deducting Rs.1 lakh under Section 80(c) and standard deduction of Rs.1,80,000/-. So, the income tax and professional tax together will come to Rs.31,682/-, and the balance annual income of the deceased was Rs.5,42,638/- i.e. Rs.45,220/- per month. 12. The deceased is survived by his wife and three children. So, the income tax and professional tax together will come to Rs.31,682/-, and the balance annual income of the deceased was Rs.5,42,638/- i.e. Rs.45,220/- per month. 12. The deceased is survived by his wife and three children. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that, the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st claimant, was an Overseer working in Irrigation Department and the 2nd claimant i.e. the elder daughter of the deceased, was an MBBS Doctor. Both of them were not dependent on the deceased, and only claimants 3 and 4 were the dependants, and so, 1/3rd had to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants would rely on the decision National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Birender and others [ 2020 ACJ 759 ] to say that, even in the case of a son who was gainfully employed, the Apex Court found that, he was entitled to claim compensation on the death of his mother. The Apex Court held that, the Tribunal was duty bound to consider the claim application of employed children, irrespective of the fact that they were fully dependent on the deceased or not, and their claim cannot be limited to conventional heads. 14. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “166. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under Section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under Section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: (3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act”. 15. The legal representatives of the deceased could move an application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The wife of the deceased, if at all she is earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would still be covered by the expression ‘legal representative of the deceased’. 16. Now the question posed before us is, whether wife of the deceased husband can be treated as his dependant, even if she is employed and is earning income. 17. The deceased was an Assistant Engineer in PWD and the 1st claimant/wife was an Overseer in Irrigation Department. They were having three children. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that, the elder one had just completed her MBBS and she was not employed. The 3rd claimant was an MBBS student and the 4th claimant also was a student at the time of death of his father. The husband and wife were staying together with their children spending money for the welfare and wellbeing of the family as well as the children. 18. When the husband and wife are staying together, and are inter-dependent on each other, even if the wife is employed, and is earning income, that will not take away her right as a dependant on her husband, and on his death she will also be entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency. 19. 18. When the husband and wife are staying together, and are inter-dependent on each other, even if the wife is employed, and is earning income, that will not take away her right as a dependant on her husband, and on his death she will also be entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency. 19. In the decision Thomas George P. (Dr.) and another v. O.Santha and others [ 2016 (4) KHC 237 ), a Division Bench of this Court held that, pure financial dependency cannot be the sole yardstick to decide the entitlement of compensation under the head loss of dependency. An employee having permanent income, by that reason alone will not become disentitled, to claim compensation for loss of dependency, on the death of his/her employed or unemployed spouse. 20. In Thomas George’s case cited supra, this Court further observed that, when two persons of opposite gender enter into a connubial relationship certainly mutual dependency would also begin. The dependency on the other would get more and more, when they get older and older. Therefore, in the case of a widow/ widower, he/she should be presumed to have been required to depend on the other, during the whole of life time, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and how long the deceased could have supported, certainly would depend upon the estimate of expectancy of his/her future span of life. In the case of a widow/ widower, he or she should be presumed to have been required to depend on the other, during the rest of his life. Such dependency is certainly one which is in addition to financial dependency and even independent of it viz., in the absence of such dependency the right to get compensation for the loss of services, as mentioned hereinbefore, has to be equated in terms of money for the said purpose. In such circumstances, merely because the surviving spouse is employed cannot be a reason for holding that he or she would not have been required to depend on the other during the rest of his life and therefore, disentitled to get compensation under the aforesaid head. 21. In the case of death of one of the spouses in a motor vehicle accident, the surviving spouse, even if employed, would be entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency. 21. In the case of death of one of the spouses in a motor vehicle accident, the surviving spouse, even if employed, would be entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency. When they are living together as husband and wife, even if either or both of them are employed, they are inter-dependant on each other. If the surviving spouse is entitled for compensation for loss of dependency, then of course he/she has to be treated as a dependant of the other. 22. There is nothing to show that, the 2nd claimant was working as a Doctor at the time of death of her father, though she was a medical graduate. So, this Court is inclined to treat all the claimants as dependants of the deceased and hence only 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 23. As already found, after deducting the professional tax and income tax, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.45,220/-. When 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the balance will come to Rs.33,915/-. Since he was aged only 51 and was having permanent employment, 15% is liable to be added towards future prospects. So, his income could be taken as Rs.39,002/- (33915+15%). 24. Regarding the multiplier to be applied, learned counsel for the insurer would submit that, since the deceased was having only four years of service left, the multiplier of 11 based on the decision Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 KHC 4634] could not have been adopted by the Tribunal. But learned Tribunal, on finding that the deceased was having only four years of service, and the 1st claimant-wife was a Government employee and the 2nd claimant a Doctor, applied a lesser multiplier of 9, without any logic or basis for the same. 25. Learned counsel for the insurer would rely on the decision Kumaran and Others v. Roy Mathew and Others [ 2017 (1) KHC 594 ], in which a Division Bench of this Court held that, in a case where specific reasons are mentioned, different multiplicands can be adopted, for different periods, within the multiplier specified in Sarla Verma’s case [2009 KHC 4634], which was subsequently affirmed in the decision Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [2013 KHC 4253]. 26. 26. In the decision Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer [2011 (1) KLT SN 136], the Apex Court held that, there should be specific reasons, based on evidence available on record, in order to apply a split multiplier. Placing reliance on that decision, in Kumaran’s case cited supra, this Court held that, when there is a certainty with respect to future earnings of the deceased, if he/she would have been alive, the Tribunal shall not shut its eyes with respect to such certainties. Therefore, when there is clear evidence with respect to the date or year of retirement of the deceased, on attaining superannuation, it cannot be contended that the Tribunal should adopt the same rate of earning, for the post retirement period also. The considerable reduction in the income, which would definitely fall in the life of the deceased, after attaining superannuation if he/she would have been alive, is a factor which may be taken note of by the Tribunal. Such specific reason for adopting different multiplicands for different periods, specifically split up from the entire period of multiplier, is based on reasons available in the evidence on record. It was further held that, application of split multiplier in such cases with different rates of multiplicand is not illegal or erroneous, nor it run against the dictum contained in the decisions of the Apex Court such as Madhusudhan’s case [2011 (1) KLT SN 136] and Puttamma and Others v. K. L. Narayana Reddy and another [2013 KHC 4997]. 27. Learned counsel for the insurer further relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Savitri and others [MANU/KE/0732/2021] in which a split multiplier method was adopted to assess loss of dependency where the deceased had only 4½ years of service left, at the time of death. 28. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Valsa [MANU/KE/0267/2015], a Division Bench of this Court adopted a novel method for applying split multiplier, in the case of an employee who died in a road traffic accident, leaving only few years of service. His salary as per the salary certificate along with addition towards future prospects, was taken as his income till his retirement and its 50% was taken as the income after retirement, for the remaining period of multiplier based on Sarla Verma’s case [2009 KHC 4634]. His salary as per the salary certificate along with addition towards future prospects, was taken as his income till his retirement and its 50% was taken as the income after retirement, for the remaining period of multiplier based on Sarla Verma’s case [2009 KHC 4634]. By adding those two amounts and dividing it by the multiplier applicable, the monthly income was found out, and then applying the normal multiplier as per Sarla Verma’s case, compensation for loss of dependency was assessed. Adopting that method, compensation for loss of dependency in the case on hand can be calculated as follows, adopting the multiplier of 11 as per Sarla Verma’s case. 29. We have assessed his monthly income with 15% future prospects as Rs.39,002/-. So, for the four year period till his retirement, the total income he could have earned was Rs.18,72,096/- (39002x12x4). After retirement, 50% of his monthly income is to be taken as his income, which will come to Rs.19,501/-. At that rate, for seven years, the total income will come to Rs.16,38,084/- (19501x12x7). The total income for the 11 year period will come to Rs.35,10,180/-. So, his annual income could be taken as Rs.3,19,107/- and monthly income as Rs.26,592/-. Taking that amount as his monthly income, and adopting the multiplier of 11, loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.35,10,144/- (26592x12x11). Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.42,29,712/- towards loss of dependency. So, there is an excess amount of Rs.7,19,568/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency and that amount is liable to be deducted. 30. Towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,40,000/-. The claimants were entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- in total. So, the claimants are eligible to get Rs.20,000/- more under the head loss of consortium. 31. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. Based on the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], the claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate. So, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate. 32. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi’s case [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], the claimants were eligible to get only Rs.15,000/-. So, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate. 32. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi’s case [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], the claimants were eligible to get only Rs.15,000/-. So, there is an excess amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head funeral expenses, and that amount also is liable to be deducted. 33. Rs.7,19,568/- awarded for loss of dependency, and Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses are in excess of the amount entitled, and that will come to Rs.7,29,568/- in total. Whereas the claimants are entitled to get enhancement of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate, which will come to Rs.30,000/- in total. After adjusting that amount, the total amount to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,99,568/-. Head of claim (1) Amount awarded by the Tribunal (2) Amount awarded in appeal (3) Amount deducted in appeal (4) Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation (5) Loss of dependency Rs.42,29,712/- Rs.35,10,144/- Rs.7,19,568/- - Loss of consortium/ loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- - Rs.20,000/- Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- - Rs.10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- - Total Rs.7,29,568/- Rs.30,000/- Excess amount to be deducted: (729568-30000)=Rs.6,99,568/- 34. As per order dated 18.11.2016, this Court directed the insurer to deposit 50% of the award amount before the Tribunal. If that amount is already deposited by the insurer, they can deduct Rs.6,99,568/- from the balance amount of compensation to be deposited. 35. The insurer (appellant in MACA No.210 of 2015) is directed to deposit the balance award amount with interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to claimants 1 to 4 (appellants in MACA No.1219 of 2015) in the ratio 70:10:10:10 after deducting their liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeals are allowed in part to the extent as above and no order as to costs.