JUDGMENT : (Easwaran S., J.) : Can the Tribunal adopt and apply split multiplier while deciding the claim for compensation and whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier, ignoring the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court are the questions posed before this Court in this appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. 2. The facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-On 11.06.2018, at 09.05 am, the 1st respondent in OP(MV) No. 599 of 2018 was driving the school bus bearing registration No.KL-50/D-8891. He reversed the vehicle negligently at a place Natamalika, and hit Mr. Kulasekharan, S/o Thimmayyan and thereby he sustained grievous injuries and further succumbed to the injuries. The claim was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased. The Insurance Company appeared and contested the claim and contented that the claim amount in the petition was highly excessive and exaggerated. However, the policy in respect of Vehicle No.KL-50/D-8891 was admitted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the 1st respondent was driving the school bus bearing registration No.KL-50/D-8891 in a rash and negligent manner thereby caused the accident? 2. Whether deceased Kulaseskharan died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and if so whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as claimed? 3. if so, what is the quantum to be awarded? 4. Reliefs and costs? 3. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the parties by the respondents. PW1 and PW2 were examined from the claimant’s side. After considering the evidence on record and also the rival pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam allowed the claim, however, substantially limiting the claim of the appellants. Hence the appeal. 4. I have heard Adv.Pooja K.S. learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Rinu S. Aswan, assisted by Sri. Bencilal B.S, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the award passed by the Tribunal limiting the compensation claimed by the appellants is erroneous and hence liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate power. Bencilal B.S, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the award passed by the Tribunal limiting the compensation claimed by the appellants is erroneous and hence liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate power. She also pointed out that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was completely erroneous and against the various settled principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. She placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in P.O. Meera & Anr. V Ananda P.Naik & Ors ( 2022 (1) KHC 591 ) to contend for the proposition that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal should have been 13, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 50 years and 15 days at the time of the death. She further pointed out that based on the judgment in the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], the multiplier for persons between 46-50 age should have been taken as 13. Since the deceased had only crossed 15 days on attainment of the age of 50, it cannot be assumed that the deceased was 51 years old. She further pointed out that the split multiplier taken by the Tribunal because the deceased was due to retire at the age of 56 was also improper. In support of her contentions, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Valsa and Others v. Ulahannan Thomas and Others [ 2015 (1) KHC 729 ] is placed reliance on. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is pointed out that the deceased was aged 50 years and 15 days and therefore, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 51. Hence, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is perfectly correct. According to the learned counsel, the compensation awarded was just and proper hence no interference at the hands of this Court is called for. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the records also. 8. Following questions require to be answered by this Court in this appeal. 1 Whether the Tribunal was justified in applying split multiplier to the claim of the appellants. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the records also. 8. Following questions require to be answered by this Court in this appeal. 1 Whether the Tribunal was justified in applying split multiplier to the claim of the appellants. 2 Which is the exact multiplier to be applied in this case? 3 Whether the appellants are entitled for any additional compensation in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. 9. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased was 50 years and 15 days at the time of the accident. The deceased was employed as a special Tahsildar and drawing a salary of Rs.32,672/-per month after tax deduction. Therefore, applying 30% as increase in the monthly income for future prospects, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the salary to Rs.42,473/-. Having fixed the salary at Rs.42,473/-, this Court must see as to whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the split multiplier. 10. The reading of paragraph 15 of the award shows that the claim of the appellants was ordered as follows:- Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed in Amount awarded Basic-vital details in a nut shell 1 Transport to hospital 10000 2000 The deceased was taken to hospital and back to home 2 Damage to clothing and articles 1000 1000 3 Medical expenses 50000 0 4 Compensation for loss of dependency 5750000 2402920 42473x12x5x2/3=1698920 11000x12x8x2/3=704000 5 Funeral expenses 25000 15000 6 Loss of estate 50000 15000 7 Compensation for loss of love and affection 100000 0 8 Loss of consortium 1,50,000 40,000 (2018) 18 S.C.C 130 9 Compensation for pain and suffering 50000 0 Total 61,86,000 24,75,920 Limited to 61,50,000 11. A perusal of the heads under which the claims were being allowed shows that the Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.42,473/ and multiplier as 5. What is the exact multiplier to be adopted in this case should be decided at the first instance. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], the Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines for the purpose of selecting the multiplier. The question of application of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) came up for consideration before this Court in P.O. Meera & Anr. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], the Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines for the purpose of selecting the multiplier. The question of application of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) came up for consideration before this Court in P.O. Meera & Anr. v. Ananda P.Naik & Ors ( 2022 (1) KHC 591 ). Rejecting the argument of the Insurance Company that since the deceased had crossed 50 years and was running 51, the multiplier was liable to be adopted at 11, this Court held, following the principles in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), that since the deceased had not completed 51 years on the date of the death, the multiplier to be adopted is 13. 12. Applying the principles as stated above, this Court finds that the method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. The deceased had crossed only 15 days after attaining 50 years at the time of death. Hence, the multiplier should have been 13 going by the principles laid down by this Court in P.O. Meera’s case (Supra). Therefore, to that extent, the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of the appellants. 13. Now, turning to the question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in adopting the split multiplier, this court has to reconcile between two Division Bench Judgments. In Valsa and Others v. Ulahannan Thomas and Others [ 2015 (1) KHC 729 ] it was held that without assigning any special reasons the split multiplier cannot be adopted. However, a contrary view was expressed by another Division Bench in Kumaran and others v. Roy Mathew and others ( 2017 (1) KHC 594 ) wherein it was held that, if there is clear evidence to show the date of retirement of the deceased, it cannot be contended that the Tribunal should adopt the uniform multiplier. 14. It may be worthwhile to note that the binding principles in Valsa’s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench while rendering the Judgment in Kumaran’s case (supra). So normally the conflict should be necessarily resolved by a Larger Bench. However, it is not required on facts of the present case since no specific reason was assigned by the Tribunal to adopt the split multiplier. So normally the conflict should be necessarily resolved by a Larger Bench. However, it is not required on facts of the present case since no specific reason was assigned by the Tribunal to adopt the split multiplier. Merely because the deceased is due to retire on attainment of superannuation is not a ground to adopt the split multiplier. However, the learned counsel for the Insurance company relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in The United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Preetha Krishnan [MACA 210 of 2015 decided on 28-6-2024] to contend for the proposition that the split multiplier can be adopted by the Tribunal in appropriate cases where the age of retirement of the deceased is certain. 15. As stated earlier, it may appear that the Judgments in Valsa’s case (supra) and Kumaran’s case (supra) conflict and this Court may have to follow the Division Bench judgment in Kumaran’s case (supra). However, it may not be so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi [ 2017(16) SCC 680 ], affirmed the principles laid down in Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and Reshma Kumari and others vs Madan Mohan [ (2013) 9 SCC 65 ] regarding the adoption of a suitable multiplier. The question of applying the split multiplier came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Valli R and Others Vs Tamil Nadu Road Transport Corporation Ltd. ( 2022 (5) SCC 107 ). The Apex Court categorically held that in view of the decision in PranaySethi’s case (supra) the adoption of split multiplier is clearly erroneous. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge while deciding in Preetha Krishnan’s case (supra) [MACA 210 of 2015] failed to notice the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Valli R’s case (supra) and hence this Court is not inclined to follow the same since it is rendered per incuriam. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Valli R’s case (supra), this Court is bound to follow the same instead of the Division Bench decision in Kumaran’s case (supra) and that of the Single Bench in Preetha Krishnan’s case (supra). 16. There is yet another reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 16. There is yet another reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. A reading of the award shows that the Tribunal blindly followed the principles in Kumaran’s case (supra) and did not assign any specific reason for applying the split multiplier. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to have a uniform multiplier applied. Hence, to that extent, the award requires modification. 17. Resultantly, the appellants are entitled to have an uniform multiplier adopted as 13 since the deceased had not crossed the age of 51 at the time of death. Once the multiplier to be applied is found to be 13, then the appellants are entitled to have the said multiplier applied uniformly. Thus, the claim reworked would be Rs.42473x12x13x2/3, which comes to Rs.44,17,192/-. 18. The next point to be considered by this Court is with regard to the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that, going by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claim of the appellants was rightly considered by the Tribunal and Rs.40,000/-was fixed for the loss of consortium. However it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 54 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the awarding of the compensation under the head loss of consortium will be liable to be enhanced @ 10% in the span of three years. Applying the principles, the appellants are entitled to a 10% enhancement under the head loss of consortium, which is quantified as Rs.8,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are declared to be entitled for the enhanced compensation as follows:-Under the head loss of dependency, the appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.20,14,272/-[42,473x12x13x2/3= Rs.44,17,192; 44,17,192 -24,02,920-already awarded). An amount of Rs.8,000-will be added as compensation under the head loss of consortium. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified as under:- Therefore, the appellants/claimants are granted to an additional compensation of Rs.20,22,272/-(Rupees twenty lakhs twenty two thousand two hundred and seventy two only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants would also be entitled for interest @ 9% from 27.11.2018 for the said amount with proportionate costs. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified as under:- Therefore, the appellants/claimants are granted to an additional compensation of Rs.20,22,272/-(Rupees twenty lakhs twenty two thousand two hundred and seventy two only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants would also be entitled for interest @ 9% from 27.11.2018 for the said amount with proportionate costs. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together interest and proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The claimants shall furnish the details of the bank account to the Insurance company for transfer of the amount. The Appeal is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.