HC limits compensation as ‘conductor can't be re-employed’

The insurance company had sought to apply the ‘split multiplier’ while his family members had opposed it

S Shyam Prasad

Bengaluru: Saying that a bus conductor’s job is not a profession that offers re-employment after retirement, the High Court of Karnataka applied the ‘split multiplier’ while awarding compensation to the family of a 54-year-old bus conductor. It reduced the compensation payable from Rs 35,61,000 to Rs 29,59,672. The insurance company had sought to apply the ‘split multiplier’ while his family members had opposed it.

The HC in its judgment said, “In the case, the deceased was an MSRTC conductor, left with six years of service. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that split multiplier cannot be applied is to be considered, the deceased should have been a highly skilled person or professor or a manager of a bank or a professional of great demand having chances of earning postretirement; but in this case, the deceased was a bus conductor.”

Yashwant Dafale was riding pillion on a motorcycle on October 21, 2016 when he met with an accident and succumbed to injuries the following day. His wife and three children approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs 57,00,000.

The Tribunal awarded Rs 35,61,000 to them. The insurance company approached the HC contending that the principle of ‘split multiplier’ ought to have been applied while calculating the compensation. The family members also approached the HC seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Division Bench of the HC gave its judgment recently. The HC accepted the argument on behalf of the insurance company. The deceased, Dafale, was 54 years old at the time of the accident and had only six years of service left. The multiplier applicable in calculating the ‘loss of dependency’ was ‘11’.

This, the company said, should “have been split in such a way that ‘6’ should be applied for the full salary and ‘5’ for the pension.” It is impossible that a bus conductor comes under the category of professionals having chances of re-employment elsewhere post-retirement.

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the principle of ‘split multiplier’ if applied to the case on hand, will not contravene the principles laid down in Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases. Hence, it is a fit case to apply ‘split multiplier’ ie, ‘6’ for the full salary and ‘5’ for the pension and accordingly, the compensation has to be determined.”