Supreme Court of India
PREETHA KRISHNAN & ORS.versusTHE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1293
- Decided
- 6 November 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and may be employed only in exceptional circumstances, which retirement does not constitute; therefore the High Court's reduction is set aside and compensation is calculated using the standard multiplier.
Summary
The deceased, an Assistant Engineer aged 51, died in a road accident and his wife and children claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.44,04,912, applying a multiplier of 9 and other heads of loss. The Kerala High Court reduced the loss of dependency component to Rs.35,10,144 by applying a split multiplier, citing post‑retirement income reduction, and altered other heads of loss. The appellants challenged this reduction, arguing that the split multiplier is not authorized by the Act and that retirement is not an exceptional circumstance. The Supreme Court held that the split multiplier is foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act and may be used only in truly exceptional cases, which superannuation does not qualify as, and reinstated the compensation calculated with the standard multiplier of 11, resulting in a total of Rs.47,76,794. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and modified the award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether a split multiplier can be applied in calculating compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Whether retirement or superannuation of the deceased constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying the use of a split multiplier.
- Whether the High Court erred in reducing the loss of dependency component by applying a split multiplier.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Grievance of the claimant-appellants is w.r.t the application of split multiplier by the High Court, causing a significant reduction in the total compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, vis-à-vis, the Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Calculation of – Application of split multiplier – Impermissibility – Deceased, an Assistant Engineer in the PWD, aged 51 years died in a car accident – Appellants (wife and children of the deceased)
Subjects
split multiplierMotor Vehicles Actcompensation calculationloss of dependencypost‑retirement income reductionsuperannuationmotor accident claim
Judgment
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 487 : 2025 INSC 1293
Preetha Krishnan & Ors.
v.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 9753-56 of 2025)
06 November 2025
[Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Grievance of the claimant-appellants is w.r.t the application of
split multiplier by the High Court, causing a significant reduction
in the total compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, vis-à-vis,
the High Court.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim –
Compensation – Calculation of – Application of split
multiplier – Impermissibility – Deceased, an Assistant Engineer
in the PWD, aged 51 years died in a car accident – Appellants
(wife and children of the deceased) sought compensation of
Rs.60,00,000/-, stating that the deceased earned Rs.47,860/-
p.m – Tribunal awarded Rs.44,04,912/- to the appellants
with interest @ 7.5% p.a – High Court inter alia reduced the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency from
Rs.42,29,712/- to Rs.35,10,144/-, by applying a split multiplier
considering the post-retirement reduction in the income
of the deceased, thereby deducting the excess amount of
Rs.7,19,568/- – Review petitions rejected by High Court –
Challenge to:
Held: Split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts
in calculation of the compensation – The income as on the date
of death is to be taken to calculate the compensation – A split
multiplier is not to be adopted, as a matter of course, and is only to
be used in the exceptional circumstances, with such circumstances
being recorded – Superannuation from service hardly qualifies as
such an exceptional circumstance, which would justify the use of
split multiplier – It is only a natural progression that a person who
* Author
488 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
enters service must also exit at some point in time – The same
cannot be taken as a negative circumstance against the deceased
person or a person injured severely, leading to incapacitation
or permanent disability – High Court failed to comply with the
directives issued in Pranay Sethi i.e., granting 10% enhancement,
every three years under the conventional heads – Multiplier of
11 applied, compensation payable to the appellants enhanced
to Rs.47,76,794/- – Impugned Award passed by the Tribunal, as
modified by the High Court vide the impugned judgment; and
judgement in review petitions, modified accordingly. [Paras 17-20]
Directions by Supreme Court – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor
Accident Claim – Compensation – Calculation of – Application
of split multiplier – Divergent opinion of High Courts:
Held: Split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts
in calculation of the compensation – A split multiplier is not to
be adopted, as a matter of course, and is only to be used in
the exceptional circumstances, with such circumstances being
recorded – Directions issued to apply prospectively and the
conclusions arrived at regarding the split multiplier, shall not affect
the judgments of the High Courts noticed – A copy of this order to
be circulated to the Registrars General of all the High Courts for
necessary information and compliance and also to the Tribunals.
[Para 22]
Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 :
(2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
Sarla Verma v. DTC [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121; N.
Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.
Ltd. [2021] 6 SCR 1001 : (2022) 14 SCC 712; Sumathi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 3697 – relied on.
K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer [2011] 2 SCR 1061 :
(2011) 4 SCC 689; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Ors.
[2013] 16 SCR 83 : (2013) 15 SCC 45 – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 489
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
List of Keywords
Split multiplier; Application of split multiplier; Calculation of
compensation; Reduction in total compensation; Post-retirement
reduction in income of deceased; Superannuation from service
not an exceptional circumstance.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No(s). 9753-9756 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2024 and 27.11.2024
of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA Nos. 210 and
1219 of 2015 in RP Nos. 1187 and 1165 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Bijo Mathew Joy, Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Pradeep Gaur, Amit Gaur, Ms. Sweta Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Ti m e t a k e n f o r Time taken for Time taken for
disposal of the disposal of the disposal of the
claim petition by appeals by the appeals in this
the MACT High Court Court
1 year 3 months 9 years 2 months 8 months 23 days
22 days and 20 days
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated
28th June 2024, passed in MACA No.210 and 1219 of 2015; and
490 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment and order dated 27.11.24 in R.P.Nos.1165 and 1187 of
2024 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which, in turn,
were preferred against the order dated 2nd April 2014 in O.P. (M.V.)
No.1105/2012, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala1.
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 3rd August
2012, the deceased, namely, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51 years, was
driving his car, bearing registration No.KL-5/M-1062 through the
Pala-Thodupuzha Road. A bus bearing registration No.KL-38/B-1833,
driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the car of the
deceased. As a result of the incident, the deceased sustained severe
injuries and died on his way to the hospital.
4. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant-appellants (the
wife and children of the deceased) under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, on 11th December 2012
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/-, stating therein
that the deceased used to earn Rs.47,860/- per month, by working
as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department.
5. The Tribunal vide its order dated 2nd April 2014, awarded an amount
of Rs.44,04,912/- to the claimant-appellants along with an interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The
Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, determined the income
of the deceased to be Rs.45,408/- per month (post deduction of
Rs.2,453/- per month payable as taxes). Since the deceased was
aged 51 years, future prospects of 15% was applied to his income. A
deduction of 1/4th of the income was made towards living expenses
and a multiplier of 9 (considering the facts that one of the petitioners
is a government employee and other is a doctor) was applied. Further,
the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium;
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.40,000/- for loss of love
and affection; and Rs.5000/- for loss of estate.
6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer
as well as the claimant-appellants filed MACA Nos. 210 of 2015 and
1219 of 2015 respectively, before the High Court.
7. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, partly allowed the
appeals and reduced the compensation under the head of loss of
dependency from Rs.42,29,712/- to Rs.35,10,144/-, by applying
1 Hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 491
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
a split multiplier considering the post-retirement reduction in the
income of the deceased, thereby deducting the excess amount of
Rs.7,19,568/-. The Court further enhanced the compensation under
the heads - loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to
Rs.1,60,000/-. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses was
reduced to Rs.15,000/-, while the amount under the head loss of
estate was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The High Court also directed
the Tribunal to disburse the amount to claimant-appellants Nos.1 to 4
(Appellants in MACA No. 1219 of 2015) in the ratio of 70:10:10:10.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the
claimant-appellants filed RP No.1165 of 2024 arising from MACA
No.210 of 2015 and RP No.1187 of 2024 arising from MACA No.1219
of 2015. The High Court, however, rejected these applications for
review, stating that if reasons are recorded, split multiplier would
be possible.
9. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 28th June 2024 and final orders
passed in RP Nos.1165 of 2024 and 1187 of 2024 by the High Court,
the claimant-appellants are now before us.
10. The point of challenge taken is that the High Court erred in applying
split multiplier without considering the possibility of the deceased
continuing to earn even after retirement. It is further contended that
the Courts failed to appreciate the educational qualification and
professional experience of the deceased, which could have secured
him a placement in the construction sector, even after his retirement.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The main grievance of the claimant-appellants is the application of
split multiplier by the High Court, causing a significant reduction in
the total compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, vis-à-vis, the
High Court. We find force in this point of challenge. The reasoning
adopted by the High Court in applying a split multiplier is that the
deceased would have shortly superannuated from service. Thereafter,
there would have been a 50% (approx. reduction) in his monthly
take-home pay.
13. We find that there are divergent views of the High Courts regarding
the use of split multiplier. Some judgments support its application while
others explicitly reject the same. Below is a tabular representation,
illustrative in nature, of certain judgments accepting the use of
split multiplier, while others passed by the same Court rejecting it.
492 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The common factor to be noted, in all these judgments is that the
person involved in the accident or the person who passed away as
a result of the accident, were employed in jobs that had a definite
retirement age.
SJ: Single Judge
DB: Division Bench
Split Multiplier Applied Split Multiplier not Applied
Delhi High Court
(SJ)
Usha Grover v. HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2012 SCC OnLine Del 3760
(SJ)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Neeru Sain,
2012 SCC OnLine Del 2472
Bombay High Court
(SJ)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Shakuntala Babasaheb Dhaktode,
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6842
Gauhati High Court
(SJ)
Ranjita Seal v. Lal Chand Sharma,
2022 SCC OnLine Gau 250
Karnataka High Court
(DB) (DB)
Branch Manager v. Mallamma, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
2023 SCC OnLine Kar 219 Tappa Sujatha,
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 11321
(DB) (DB)
IFFCO Tokio GIC Ltd. v. A.S. Suvarna v. Kishan,
Mohan Sunder, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 2578
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1776
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 493
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(SJ) (SJ)
Senior Divisional Manager v. Sundaramma v. N.D.
Jyotiba Appaji Shigate, 2019 SCC Chandrashekar,
OnLine Kar 3908 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 13379
(DB) (DB)
Sayeda v. P. Murgan, Gouramma v. A.V.V. Bhadra Rao,
2016 SCC OnLine Kar 777 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1892
(DB) (DB)
Yashodamma v. Ravindra, Reliance General Insurance
2014 SCC OnLine Kar 9592 Company Ltd. v. M.
Jayalakshmamma,
2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6507
Kerela High Court
(SJ) (SJ)
National Insurance Company United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Limited v. J.C. Bose, 2020 SCC Preetha Krishnan,
OnLine Ker 6564 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 3526
(DB) (SJ)
Vinod K.Y. v. Sunny Kurien, Baby Girija v. Thameem R.C.,
2017 SCC OnLine Ker 39482 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4088
(DB) (SJ)
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.
Noorjahan M., Jenova,
2017 SCC OnLine Ker 34559 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6562
(DB) (SJ)
K. Ramanathan v. Jayan Poulose, Oriental Insurance Company
2017 SCC OnLine Ker 36615 Limited v. Lucy,
2018 SCC OnLine Ker 13107
(DB)
Special Grade Secretary v.
Maniammal,
2017 SCC OnLine Ker 20075
Madras High Court
(SJ) (DB)
M. Valarmathi and Others ν. T.S. Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram
Rajan and Another Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd ν. Alli
2019 SCC OnLine Mad 5490 and Others
2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1178
494 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(DB) (SJ)
Branch Manager, National The Branch Manager, SETC TVL
Insurance Co. Ltd. ν. M. Arulmozhi Limited, ν. Sethu
2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3416 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 12761
High Court of Orissa
(SJ)
Puspalata Sahu v. Jagdish Prasad
Mohanty,
2012 SCC OnLine Ori 16
(SJ)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Samita Maharana,
2022 SCC OnLine Ori 1994
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
(SJ) (SJ)
Birmati v. Mukesh Kumar, Slier Singh v. Naresh Kumar,
2016 SCC OnLine P&H 19759 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6835
Rajasthan High Court
(SJ)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Santosh,
2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1652
High Court of Allahabad
(SJ)
Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Amar Kaur,
2022 SCC OnLine All 1809
14. As can be seen from the above table, there is diverging opinion on
the application of split multiplier. While certain High Courts have
differences intra-court, there also exists inter-court difference. What
is more concerning to us, is the former. Given that there was no
uniformity of opinion within a single Court, the Tribunal below is left
bereft of guidance leading to differences in compensation awarded
for no justifiable reason. This also creates a concerning situation for
judicial discipline. We have found instances where a division bench
has applied the concept, but a learned single Judge has refused to
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 495
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
do so, subsequently. Further, when there are differences of opinion
in benches of equal strength, it is incumbent upon the Court to seek
to resolve by referring the issue to a bench of larger composition.
15. There can be no gainsaying that the judgment of this Court in
Sarla Verma v. DTC2 represented the coming of a much more
structured, uniform method of calculation of compensation in motor
accident cases insofar as the multiplier to be applied is concerned.
In this judgment itself, it was observed that the practice of applying
multiplier which is equivalent to the number of years the deceased
or the injured person had left in service, is the confusion that has
to be avoided.
“41. ... Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier
of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference
to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of
inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under
Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act.
In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies
method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries
Ltd., 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] is applicable.
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared
by applying Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and
Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ),
which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years,
M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for
41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced
by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years
and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
16. It has been held time and again by this Court that a split multiplier is
not to be adopted, as a matter of course, and is only to be used in the
exceptional circumstances, with such circumstances being recorded.
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
496 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
[See Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. DTC and Ors.3] Reference may
be made to N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd.4, this Court held that the application of a split
multiplier in a case involving a 52-year-old Assistant Professor
of Mathematics was not justified. It was observed in reference to
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi5 that the Rule of
Thumb of adding 15% of the salary as future prospects in cases
where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 was not to
be deviated from.
17. Superannuation from service hardly qualifies as such an exceptional
circumstance, which would justify the use of split multiplier. It is
only a natural progression that a person who enters service must
also exit at some point in time. The same cannot be taken as a
negative circumstance against the deceased person or a person
injured severely, leading to incapacitation or permanent disability.
The position, in our considered view, is evidently clear from what
stood observed by this Court in Sumathi v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd.6, as under :
‘....it is clear that in normal course, the compensation
is to be calculated by applying the multiplier, as per the
judgment of this Court Sarla Verma2. Split multiplier cannot
be applied unless specific reasons are recorded. The
finding of the High Court that the deceased was having
leftover service of only four years, cannot be construed
as a special reason, for applying the split multiplier for the
purpose of assessing the compensation. In normal course,
compensation is to be assessed by applying multiplier as
indicated by this Court in the judgment in Sarla Verma2.
As no other special reason is recorded for applying the
split multiplier, judgment1 of the High Court is fit to be set
aside by restoring the award of the Tribunal.’
(Emphasis supplied)
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
4 (2022) 14 SCC 712
5 (2017) 16 SCC 680
6 2021 SCC Online SC 3697
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 497
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
18. The judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment, i.e., K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer7 and
Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Ors.8, in our considered view,
does not support the use of a split multiplier. In both these judgments,
this Court has held that there have to be cogent reasons recorded
for its use. As already observed above, retirement from service is
not ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘exceptional’ and ‘cogent’ for the same to
qualify. It is also, a matter of considerable difficulty to conceive what
such cogent or exceptional circumstances may be. In any event,
the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) had, in para 59.7
observed that the age of the deceased is the criterion to be utilized
for multiplier. It does not provide for any other possibilities. This, in
our considered view, does not even leave open the possibility of
employment of split multiplier, whatsoever. As such, when dealing
with a beneficial legislation which relies on just compensation as its
bedrock, it is most prudent to tread the path of certainty, insofar as
practicable. This is more so important in the context of age which is
the primary basis for computation of compensation. In other words,
split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation
of the compensation.
19. Concluding the issue of income, we hold that the income as on
the date of death is to be taken to calculate the compensation. We
further notice that the High Court failed to comply with the directives
issued in Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e., granting 10% enhancement,
every three years under the conventional heads. In accordance
with the above discussion, the compensation now payable to the
claimant-appellant is as under:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Compensation Amount Awarded In Accordance
Heads with:
Monthly Income Rs.45,408/-
Yearly Income Rs.5,44,896/-
7 (2011) 4 SCC 689
8 (2013) 15 SCC 45
498 [2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Future Prospects 5,44,896 + 81,734 National Insurance
(15%) (Age being 51 Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
= Rs.6,26,630/-
years) Sethi
Deduction (1/4) 6,26,630 – 2,08,876 (2017) 16 SCC 680
= Rs.4,17,754/- Para 37, 39, 41, 42
and 59.4
Multiplier (11) 4,17,754 X 11
= Rs.45,95,294/-
Loss of Income of the Rs.45,95,294/-
Deceased
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/- Sethi
Expenses
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Para 59.8
Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 3 National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
= Rs.1,45,200/-
Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Para 59.8
United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Satinder Kaur,
(2021) 11 SCC 780
Para 37.12
Rajwati alias Rajjo
and Ors v. United
India Insurance
Company Ltd. and
Ors.
2022 SCC Online
SC 1699
Para 34
Total Rs.47,76,794/-
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 499
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.44,04,912/- Rs.35,10,144/- Rs.47,76,794/-
20. The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned
Award dated 2nd April 2014 passed in O.P.(MV) No. 1105 of 2012
by the Tribunal, as modified by the High Court of Kerala, vide the
impugned judgment dated 28th June 2024, passed in MACA Nos.210
of 2015 and 1219 of 2015; and judgement and order dated 27.11.24
in R.P.Nos.1165 and 1187 of 2024 shall stand modified accordingly.
Interest on the amount is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. In
the end, we may only record our surprise regarding the approach
adopted by the High Court despite clear observations in Sumathi
(supra).
21. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the claimant-
appellants as directed by the High Court. The particulars of the bank
accounts are to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for
the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount
be remitted positively before 30th November, 2025.
22. We clarify that the directions issued by this order shall apply
prospectively and the conclusions arrived at regarding the split
multiplier, shall not affect the judgments of the High Courts noticed
by us above. That was done only for the purpose of demonstrating
the difference of opinion prevalent on this issue as also shedding
light on the situation which comprises judicial propriety. A copy of
this order is directed to be circulated by the Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to the learned Registrars General of all the High Courts
for necessary information and compliance. It is requested that an
e-copy of the order be also circulated to the Tribunals forthwith.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "split multiplier"Sign in to search