JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company Ltd. which was respondent No.3 in Motor Accident Claims Case No.36 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur has preferred this appeal against the award dated 23.1.2015 passed by the Tribunal in the said Claim case. 2. The claimant respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased. Her case before the Tribunal is that the deceased late Wangkhem Rocky Meetei was serving as police constable. On 15.3.2014 at about 10:10 AM her deceased son along the pillion rider was driving a two wheeler bearing Regn. No. MN-O1R-9391. Near the gate of 69 CRPF Camp along NH No.2 at Mantripukhri the offending truck bearing Regn. No. MN 01-8331 suddenly came from the eastern side of the road towards divider and dashed against the two wheeler which was being driven by the deceased. In view of such accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the pillion rider also sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, the pillion rider was treated in hospital and his right leg had to be amputated. With these allegations the claimant respondent filed an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 claiming compensation of Rs.43,67,480/- The owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. Oil Tanker was made respondent No.1 in the claim petition and the driver of the said offending vehicle was made respondent No.2. The present appellant, Insurance Company, was made respondent No.3 in the claim petition. The respondent No.4 in the claim petition is the owner of the Motorcycle. 3. The respondents- 1 and 2, i.e. the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle did not dispute the accident and submitted before the Tribunal that the vehicle was covered by an Insurance and any liability of compensation should be saddled on the Insurance Company. The present appellant filed separate written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further submitted that both the driver of the Oil Tanker and the deceased were responsible for the accident and therefore claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The owner of the Motorcycle, respondent No.4, supported the claim of the claimant-respondent No.1. 4. The present appellant filed separate written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further submitted that both the driver of the Oil Tanker and the deceased were responsible for the accident and therefore claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The owner of the Motorcycle, respondent No.4, supported the claim of the claimant-respondent No.1. 4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues and while answering the issues, came to the following findings: A - The accident took place on 15.3.2014 at about 10:10 AM near the gate of 69 CRPF Camp along NH No.2 at Mantripukhri and in the said accident one Tata Oil Tanker and one Two wheeler were involved. In the said accident, the son of claimant-respondent No.1 sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries where the pillion rider sustained serious injuries; B -The Offending vehicle, i.e. Tata Oil Tanker was being driven in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident and therefore the claimant is entitled to compensation; C - The vehicle having been insured with the present appellant, the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal further took the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.17010/- per month and after deducting 50% and applying 17 multiplier allowed compensation of Rs.24,99,028/- 5. In the appeal before this Court Shri A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company challenged the award solely on the ground that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and mother being the claimant, age of the mother should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of multiplier and not the age of the deceased. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court. Reliance was placed in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Shyam Singh & Ors reported in 2011(3) T.A.C. 625(S.C.) and in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak & Ors vide Civil Appeal Nos- 2926 & 2927 of 2007 disposed of on 10th July, 2007 . Shri A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondent submitted that in an application filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act, multiplier is the best method for assessing compensation and it does not depend on the question as to whether the deceased is unmarried or married. Shri A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondent submitted that in an application filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act, multiplier is the best method for assessing compensation and it does not depend on the question as to whether the deceased is unmarried or married. In all cases of such fatal accidents, the multiplier has to be on the basis of the age of the deceased and not the basis of age of the parents of the deceased. The learned counsel also relied upon four decision of the Supreme Court which will be referred to later on. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant having raised only one issue with regard to multiplier, I feel it necessary to refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant respondents. In the case of Sarla Verma(Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 this question came up for consideration. In the said judgment the Supreme Court considered two earlier judgments of the same court and prepared a table indicating multiplier to be applied in terms of the earlier two Supreme Court decisions as well as in terms of the 2nd Column in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act. Referring to the said table, the Supreme Court came to the following conclusions: “41.Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas : (1994)2 SCC 176 (set out in Column (2) of the table above) ; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra : (1996) 4 SCC 362 ( set out in Column (3) of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie : (2005) 10 SCC 720 (set out in Column (4) of the table above); many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act (extracted in Column (5) of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in Column (6) of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thamas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. 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 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, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) 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 26-30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36- 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.” 7. The said decision was not only referred to but also relied upon by a larger Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr reported in (2013)9 SCC 65 . The larger Bench specifically held that irrespective of whether the claim is under Section 166 or section 163-A the multiplier indicated in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma’s case(supra) must be followed. In the case of Puttamma & Ors Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr reported in AIR 2014 SC 706 the Court again relied upon Serla Verma’s case and applied the appropriate multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. 8. These three decisions were distinguished by the learned counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that in the three reported cases referred to above the deceased persons were married. 8. These three decisions were distinguished by the learned counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that in the three reported cases referred to above the deceased persons were married. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak (supra) and submitted that it was a case of an unmarried person who died in an accident and the supreme Court took into consideration the age of the parents for the purpose of multiplier. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Shyam Singh(supra) and submitted that in this case also the deceased was unmarried and age of the parents was taken into account for the purpose of multiplier. 9. It is true that in the above two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant the age of the parents had been taken into consideration for the purpose of multiplier but in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors and Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) no such distinction was made and it was held that multiplier has to be on the basis of age of the deceased. In an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lall Jain and Anr Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors in Civil Appeal NO.4497 of 2015, reliance was placed on Sarla Verma’s case and multiplier was applied accordingly on the basis of the age of the deceased and in the said case the deceased was unmarried. 10. I, therefore, find that Sarla Verma’s case having been accepted by a larger Bench and subsequently followed in two other decisions of the Supreme Court as referred to above, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased suffers from no infirmity. I accordingly find no justification to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The MAC Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.