Split Multiplier Rejected and Nine Percent Interest Upheld in Motor Accident Death Claims

On February 21, 2018, S.B. Yeshwant (the deceased), a Senior Technician at Rail Wheel Factory, was riding his motorcycle when he was struck by a car insured by Respondent No. 1.

He later succumbed to his injuries. The claimants (wife, two children, and mother) sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,47,160/- after deducting 10% for contributory negligence, as it found the deceased failed to follow the "halt and proceed" rule when entering a main road.

Both the claimants (seeking enhancement) and the Insurance Company (seeking reduction) appealed the award.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was in accordance with the established principles of law regarding loss of dependency and consortium.

2. Whether the 10% deduction for contributory negligence attributed to the deceased was legally sustainable based on the evidence.

3. Whether the "split multiplier" method should be applied for a deceased person aged 56.

4. Whether the interest rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

The Court applied Section 166 and Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation and interest.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] to determine future prospects and the quantification of "Loss of Consortium" at Rs. 40,000 per dependent.

Regarding the multiplier, the court followed Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy [(2013) 15 SCC 45] and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712], which mandate a single multiplier over the "split multiplier" method unless specific evidence justifies departure.

For interest rates, the court cited United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Malyadri M. [2026 SCC Online Kar 4090] and various Supreme Court precedents confirming 9% as a "just" rate in death and disability cases.

The Court upheld the 10% contributory negligence, agreeing with the Tribunal’s assessment of the eyewitness (PW.2) testimony and the sketch, which showed the deceased entered the main road suddenly from an ancillary road.

Regarding income, the Court affirmed the deduction of income and professional tax, arriving at a monthly income of Rs. 82,930/-, with 15% future prospects and a multiplier of 9.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s plea for a "split multiplier," noting that the law does not envisage its routine application even for those nearing retirement.

The Court found the "Loss of Consortium" award was deficient; per Pranay Sethi, it must be paid to all four dependents (Rs. 1,60,000 total) rather than a lump sum of Rs. 40,000.

The 9% interest rate was maintained as fair and compensatory rather than punitive, aligned with the long delay (10 years) since the accident.

The total compensation was enhanced by Rs. 1,08,000/- (after a 10% deduction for contributory negligence) solely due to the revised calculation of Loss of Consortium.

The final total compensation was fixed at Rs. 79,50,178/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition until realization. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.