JUDGMENT 1. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, this Court is of the view that certain important questions of law have arisen in the instant case. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: One Maila Tamang suffered an accident on 20.12.2001 and he died. A claim petition was filed by the widow and the daughter of the said Maila Tamang, since deceased. The learned Tribunal concerned disposed of the said claim petition by judgement/award dated 1.4.2003 whereby the said learned Tribunal found that the gross income of Maila Tamang was Rs. 10,500/- per month and the deductions were Rs. 3,684. The said figure Rs. 3,6847- comprised of C.P.F. Rs. 1,074/-, C.P.F.(L) Rs. 2,500/- and P.T. Rs. 110/-. The learned Tribunal found that the said Maila Tamang died at the age of 58 years and applied the multiplier of 8 and came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/-. The learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company concerned to make the payment within one month failing which the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realisation. 3. Apart from the other questions of law involved in the present appeal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal below erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in terms of the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 since it has already been decided in a number of cases that in cases where the deceased had crossed 50 years of age, it is fit and proper that the years remaining in service should be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the multiplier. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company, since the victim was 58 years of age when the accident took place and the victim died, the multiplier of 2 should be applied. 4. In support of his contention the said learned Advocate cited a decision reported at 2010 (3) T.A.C. 21 (Cal.) (Smt. Rita Ghosh & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.). 4. In support of his contention the said learned Advocate cited a decision reported at 2010 (3) T.A.C. 21 (Cal.) (Smt. Rita Ghosh & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.). In the said case the victim was an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board at the relevant point of time and was aged 51 years and it was found that he could have completed further nine years of service. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that the multiplier of 9 should be applied as 9 years of service was still left. 5. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2012 (3) T.A.C. 77 (Cal.) (Smt. Nanita Mishra alias Misra & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 51 years and was a Central Government employee. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to apply the multiplier of 9 as the unexpired period of service was 9 years. 6. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2010 (2) T.A.C. 840 (Cal.) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sajeda Begum & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was a Government employee and had just seven years of service left. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 7 instead of 11 as the victim had just seven years of service left. 7. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 (4) T.A.C. 446 (Cal.) (Smt. Sankari Banik & ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 54 years and was an employee of the State. It has been observed in the said reports that the deceased was due to retire at the age of 60 years and there is no illegality in applying the multiplier of 6. 8. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 ACJ 1336 (Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. Padma & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that deceased was aged about 53 years and was an employee under the State Government. The Hon'ble Apex Court applied the multiplier of 8 in the said case. 9. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 (2) T.A.C. 869 (Cal.) (Pampa Banik & Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court applied the multiplier of 8 in the said case. 9. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 (2) T.A.C. 869 (Cal.) (Pampa Banik & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.), wherefrom it appears that the learned Tribunal concerned had applied the multiplier of 11 after taking into consideration the age of the victim's father. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that the victim was aged about 29 years and was a business man and further observed that the multiplier of 10 should be applied in the case of the claimant-widow and the multiplier of 6 should be applied in the case of mother of the deceased. 10. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at (2009) 3 SCC 705 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bindu & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the learned Tribunal concerned had applied the multiplier 17 in terms of 2nd Schedule of the said Act of 1988 considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 32 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to fix the multiplier at 13 and the said Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that the 2nd Schedule to the said Act of 1988 is to serve only as a guide but cannot be said to be an invariable ready reckoner. 11. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2007 ACJ 1076 (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Sripriya & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 37 years and was an employee of the State Corporation. The learned Tribunal concerned applied the multiplier of 16 but the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to fix the multiplier at 12. It thus appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased not to follow the 2nd Schedule of the said Act of 1988. 12. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2006 ACJ 423 (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. K.I. Bindu & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 34 years and the learned Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 in terms of the 2nd Schedule of the said Act of 1988 but the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to reduce the multiplier to 13. 13. 13. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2005 ACJ (Volume - III) 1441 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 38 years and the learned Tribunal concerned adopted the multiplier of 16 but the Hon'ble Apex Court applied the multiplier of 12 and was pleased to reduce the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. The said learned Advocate also cited a decision reported at (2009) 4 SCC 277 (Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Limited vs. Mimla Devi (Smt) & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was aged about 43 years and the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to find that the appropriate multiplier should be fixed at 10. 15. The said learned Advocate cited some unreported judgements also in support of his contention that in a case where the victim and/or the deceased is aged 50 years, the remaining period in service should be taken into consideration and the multiplier should be fixed accordingly. Following are the unreported judgements cited by the said learned Advocate:- (1) Judgement dated 25.4.2012 passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A. No. 87 of 2011 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Niyoti Rooj & Ors.). (2) Judgement dated 27.2.2012 passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A. No. 497 of 2007 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Smt. Anu Rani Bakshi & Ors.) with F.M.A. No. 689 of 2004 (Smt. Anu Rani Bakshi & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.). (3) Judgement dated 24.2.2012 passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A. No. 327 of 2010 (Smt. Rekha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.). 16. The learned Advocate appearing on the behalf of the claimants/appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier of eight in terms of the second schedule to the said Act of 1988. He submitted that the theory based on the remaining period of service cannot be applied as the victim concerned, if he had been alive, could have also earned even after his retirement by keeping himself employed in some fruitful employment. He submitted that if the victim had been alive he could have also run his own business or entered into some kind of profession for earning his living. He submitted that if the victim had been alive he could have also run his own business or entered into some kind of profession for earning his living. He submitted that there are judgements to the contrary which do not approve of fixing the multiplier on the basis of the remaining period of service of the victim and/or the deceased. He cited the judgement reported in 2002 (1) CLJ 396 (Smt. Sabita Sarkar & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe in paragraph 22 of the said reports that Their Lordships were unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company that since the victim was 44 years of age at the time of the accident and, therefore, he had about 14 to 16 years of service left, the Tribunal rightly applied 10 as the multiplier. It appears that Their Lordships were pleased to observe that 15 should have been the appropriate multiplier in the said case. It appears that such multiplier of 15 is prescribed in the second schedule of the said Act of 1988. 17. The said learned Advocate for the claimants/appellants cited another decision reported at 2011 (3) TAC 623 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co. Lrd. vs. Vithabai & Ors.), wherefrom it appears that the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 8 when the deceased was aged about 56 years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to approve such fixation of the multiplier which was in accordance with the second schedule to the said Act of 1988. 18. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported in 2011 (2) WBLR (SC) 705 (Sri K.R. Madhusudan & Ors. vs. The Administrative Officer & Anr.), wherefrom it appears that the deceased was 52 years of age and was working as a Senior Assistant in Karnataka Electricity Board. In the said reported case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the deceased was entitled to get a rise in the income in the future and such prospect of future increment has to be taken into consideration. In the said reported case the Tribunal concerned had applied the multiplier 11. In the said reported case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the deceased was entitled to get a rise in the income in the future and such prospect of future increment has to be taken into consideration. In the said reported case the Tribunal concerned had applied the multiplier 11. The High Court concerned found that the deceased was aged about 52 years and the deceased would have retired by the age of 58 years and thus the multiplier to be applied was 6. Such decision of the Hon'ble High Court concerned was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said reports, was pleased to observe that the prospect of future increment has to be taken into consideration and the Tribunal did not commit any error by applying the multiplier of 11 which was in terms of the second schedule of the said Act of 1988. 19. The said learned Advocate also referred to an unreported judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court being judgement dated 22.03.2012 passed in FMA 353 of 2012 wherefrom it appears that the age of the victim was 59 years and he had one year service left to his credit. The learned Tribunal concerned applied the multiplier of 8. The said Division Bench did not interfere with such fixation of multiplier of 8. Citing such reported and unreported cases, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the multiplier fixed by the learned Tribunal was just and proper but the learned Advocate for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted, citing the judgements referred to by him, that in the instant case the remaining period of service of the deceased should be taken into consideration and the multiplier should have been fixed at 2. 20. It appears to this Court, considering the aforesaid reported and unreported cases cited at the Bar, that there is a difference of opinion with regard to the question as to what would be the proper course to be adopted while fixing the multiplier for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation amount in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 21. After having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the judgements cited at the Bar this Court is of the view that such question should be referred to a Larger Bench. 21. After having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the judgements cited at the Bar this Court is of the view that such question should be referred to a Larger Bench. The questions to be decided in such reference are as follows: 1. What would be the basis of fixing the multiplier for the purpose of deciding the amount of compensation in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether or not it would be proper to fix such multiplier on the basis of the remaining period of service of the victim and/or the deceased in a case where the victim and/or the deceased had died after fifty years of age? In the aforesaid circumstances, this file should be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid two questions of law as indicated above.