11.It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company that considering the age and avocation of the deceased, a split multiplier should have been adopted by the Tribunal. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Further, there was no discussion by the Tribunal, with regard to the issue of split multiplier. It appears that the said issue was not raised before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, in the enhancement appeal, it is not appropriate to adopt the split multiplier. The Apex Court in the judgment in Puttamma and Others v. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another [2014 1 TNMAC 481 (SC)] categorically held that “in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the Tribunal or the Court should not apply Split Multiplier in routine course and should apply Multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and another [2013(9) SCC 65].” Applying the same, the contention so made by the learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company cannot be countenanced by this Court. In view of the same, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 11, the compensation towards loss of dependency works to Rs.6,07,200/- [Rs.6,900/- x 12 x 11 x 2/3] and is accordingly, modified.
