The Supreme Court, on Thursday, set aside a Kerala High Court ruling that had reduced compensation for the family of a government engineer who died in a 2012 road accident. The bench held that the High Court wrongly applied a “split multiplier” to lower the compensation, calling the practice legally unsound and inconsistent.
Background
The case relates to the death of T.I. Krishnan, aged 51, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, Kerala. On 3 August 2012, his car was hit by a bus driven rashly on the Pala-Thodupuzha road, leading to fatal injuries. His wife and children filed a claim seeking ₹60 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pala, awarded ₹44,04,912 along with 7.5% interest in 2014.
Read also: Kerala High Court orders immediate clean-up and shampoo sachet ban at Erumeli to protect
However, in 2015, when the matter reached the Kerala High Court, the compensation was reduced to ₹35,10,144. The High Court applied a “split multiplier,” reasoning that the deceased would soon have retired and thus his income would drop post-retirement. The claimant family later sought review, but the High Court dismissed their petitions.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that courts across the country have differed widely on whether split multipliers should be used in motor accident compensation cases. The bench pointed out that many High Courts have taken contradictory stands even within the same court itself, causing confusion for tribunals and inconsistencies for families seeking compensation.
The bench remarked sharply that retirement is a normal event in one’s working life and cannot be treated as an “exceptional circumstance” to reduce rightful compensation. “Superannuation is hardly an exceptional circumstance that justifies altering the multiplier,” the Court said.
The justices emphasized that the method laid down in Sarla Verma and reaffirmed in Pranay Sethi must be followed consistently, with split multiplier allowed only in rare and well-justified situations. They found no such justification here.
The bench also pointed out that the High Court did not properly factor in future prospects - the salary increase that is normally added for determining loss of income.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Dowry Harassment Case, Says High Courts Cannot Conduct 'Mini-Trial' While
Decision
Restoring a uniform approach, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation following standard guidelines. It held that the family is entitled to ₹47,76,794, which is higher than the Tribunal’s award and significantly more than what the High Court granted.
The Court directed the insurer to transfer the compensation directly to the bank accounts of the widow and children and allowed interest to continue as originally awarded. The bench expressed surprise at the High Court’s approach, stating it should have adhered to earlier clear directions from the Supreme Court.
The order will apply prospectively, and High Courts and Motor Accident Tribunals nationwide have been asked to circulate and follow the ruling uniformly.
Case Title: Preetha Krishnan & Others vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2025
