JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition is directed against the award rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, in MAC Petition No. 28 of 2008 whereby on demise of the predecessor in interest of the claimants in a Motor Vehicle Accident, it awarded compensation to the respondents comprised in a sum of Rs.5,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, liability whereof stood fastened upon the petitioner. 2. The trite assault constituted by the counsel for the petitioner herein qua this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India setting aside the impugned award of the MACT, its evidently standing permeated with a stark illegality besides impropriety, stands grooved in the factum of the learned MACT in gross departure from the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court encapsulated in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 , the relevant paragraph No.6 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “6. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. The monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on the materials placed before it. But considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65 years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-. The same shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application for compensation. Taking into account the monthly contribution at Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-. The same shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted from the amount due.” Where within a peremptory dictate occurs of the age of the dependants of the deceased constituting the relevant statistical data for derivation therefrom of the apt multiplier for its concomitant application to the loss of dependency, for hence arriving at a just and fair compensation amount payable to the dependents of the deceased, warranting omnibus deference, contrarily its deriving the relevant multiplier from the age of the deceased whereupon he contends of the impugned award of the MACT necessitating its standing nullified. He proceeds to contend qua with the MACT concerned while choosing besides selecting the relevant multiplier, it inaptly making the relevant choice from the age of the deceased hence has also committed a gross absurdity also has committed a manifest error of law besides has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law whereupon this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lean to reverse the award of the MACT qua the amount of compensation determined by it qua the claimants. 3. There is no wrangle with the proposition of law qua this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it holding a wide plenary jurisdiction to interfere in the relevant renditions, on surgingforth of evident material of Courts or Tribunals subordinate to it, while exercising jurisdiction its/theirs making gross departure from the mandate of law or their relevant renditions standing ingrained with a pervasive vice of gross mis-appreciation of law also of it/their verdicts are in stark departure from the view propounded in binding judicial precedents. In the learned MACT selecting the relevant multiplier it had borne in mind the age of the deceased. In the learned MACT selecting the relevant multiplier it had borne in mind the age of the deceased. The imputation of deference by the learned Tribunal to the age of the deceased for deriving therefrom the apt multiplier, palpably spurs from a pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 , where within a peremptory mandate occurs of the age of the deceased constituting the relevant indicia for selecting or choosing a suitable multiplier for hence multiplying therewith the arithmetical figure of loss of dependency wherefrom the just and fair compensation amount payable to the claimants is arrived at. The view as taken therein stands reiterated by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 . In both the aforesaid renditions the Hon’ble Apex Court, on an adnauseam dwelling upon its earlier verdicts pronounced in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas ( 1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others (1996) 4 SCC 362 , and Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , had vindicated the pronouncements occurring therein qua adoption of multiplier method of compensation by learned Tribunals being an apt mode for thereupon arriving at a just, fair and reasonable compensation amount to be paid to the claimants besides had validated qua selection of the apt multiplier emanating from the age of the deceased. Also in the pronouncements afore-referred a passing reference stood made therein to the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 wherein in paragraph 6, the Hon’ble Apex Court while assessing compensation qua the claimants had selected the relevant multiplier while bearing in mind the age of the claimants. The verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 stood pronounced by a Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a coram of two Hon’ble Judges. However, the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. The verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 stood pronounced by a Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a coram of two Hon’ble Judges. However, the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 , stood pronounced by a Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a coram of three Hon’ble Judges. In the latter judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held a view qua the age of the claimants constituting the apt reckoner for the choice of a suitable multiplier. The conundrum which besets this Court is qua the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra verdict whereof stood followed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and in Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 postulating the binding precedent for deference thereto standing meted by the MACT concerned or the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court encapsulated in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 , holds therewithin the binding precedent qua the relevant fact of choice of multiplier being reckonable or derivable contrarily from the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant. For resolving the aforesaid conundrum the principle held in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 , verdict whereof of the Hon’ble Apex Court stands pronounced by a Bench holding a coram of five Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court, holds valuable guidance. The relevant apt paragraph 12(1) stands extracted hereinafter:- “12(1). The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.” It there within encapsulates the formula for unriddling the conundrum, formula whereof is qua a previous decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered by a Bench of larger strength being binding on a subsequent Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a lesser or co-equal strength. Bearing in mind the aforesaid formula for determining qua hence the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Bearing in mind the aforesaid formula for determining qua hence the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra verdict whereof stood followed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , holding therewithin a binding precedent qua the relevant aforesaid facet or the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 holding therewithin a binding precedent qua the apposite factum probandum, for thereupon, testing, qua adherence by the learned Tribunal with the mandate of the Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra which stood followed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , being prima facie apt or inapt also for thereupon pronouncing qua this Court standing prodded to interfere with the impugned rendition of the MACT concerned, its striking a discord with the apt binding precedent, an allusion, to the striking factum probandum, of, the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , when stood rendered by a Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a coram of three Hon’ble Judges may not constitute them to be holding there within a binding rule of law qua choice of the apt multiplier or the selection of the apt multiplier being reconable from the age of the deceased predominantly when the prescription, in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 qua an earlier verdict of the Apex Court pronounced by a bench strength coordinate or coequal with the Bench strength which pronounced the subsequent verdict, holding may be qua the relevant factum probandum a binding precedent for the subsequent coequal coordinate Bench strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court whereupon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 which occurred prior to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , also with the bench strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court which pronounced New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 being co-equal or coordinate vis-a-vis the bench strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court which pronounced the verdict in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , its may be holding there within the relevant judicial precedent for may be adherence thereto by the subsequent co-equal coordinate Bench strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court which pronounced verdicts in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 . However, in the subsequent rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court vis-a-vis Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , a passing reference is made to the earlier pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 . Conspicuously, also the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 though occurred subsequent to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra where within the Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court took a view contrary to the one which stood taken by the Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra may not prima facie attract the prohibition of the rule cast in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 given the earlier verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas supra standing rendered by a Bench strength lesser to the one which qua the relevant factum probandum rendered judgement in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Susamma Thomas supra standing rendered by a Bench strength lesser to the one which qua the relevant factum probandum rendered judgement in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 . Consequently, the pronouncement which occurs in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 qua the age of the claimants being the apt reckoner for choosing besides selecting the relevant multiplier may therewithin constitute the binding judicial precedent. However, the subsequent pronouncements held in the renditions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 wherein a contra distinct view occurs vis.a.vis the view taken in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 , when stand pronounced by a bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a coram of three Hon’ble Judges, may not, hold congruity with the prescriptions held in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 qua the latter Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding a bench strength co-equal or co-ordinate vis-a-vis the Bench strength which pronounced the earlier verdict prima facie may be meeting deference to the earlier judicial verdict pronounced by a congruent bench strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court qua the relevant facts also may not hold the apt binding judicial precedent qua the relevant fact. Reiteratedly with the aforesaid verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex Court standing pronounced by a Bench strength holding congruity with the bench strength which pronounced the earlier verdict reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 , also with the pronouncement of a verdict by the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 occurring prior to the pronouncement of verdicts by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 occurring prior to the pronouncement of verdicts by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 it may within the principle held in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held qua an earlier verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered by a Bench of co-equal coram vis-a-vis the coram of Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court which pronounced the latter verdict may be constituting a binding precedent upon the congruous coram of Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court which pronounced the latter verdict whereas when in departure of the aforesaid principle the latter judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court when stood rendered by a Bench strength equal in number to the Bench strength which rendered the earlier judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 where within they departed from the earlier view, may not render them to be binding precedents qua the relevant fact. However, the aforesaid view as taken by this Court merits resolution only from the Hon’ble Apex Court and only at the instance of the Insurance Company. The learned MACT while meeting reverence to the rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas ( 1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281 where within the age of the deceased is held to be relevant for choosing and selecting the apt multiplier, it, may not have committed any gross illegality or also may not have wandered astray from the apposite principle warranting deference beside adherence thereto by it, imminently when for reasons aforestated there are divergent besides conflicting views by the Benches of the Hon’ble Apex Court qua the facet aforesaid. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court on the relevant issue qua the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant being relevant for choosing or selecting the apt multiplier has expressed in its renditions divergent views. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court on the relevant issue qua the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant being relevant for choosing or selecting the apt multiplier has expressed in its renditions divergent views. In sequel with conflict intra se benches of the Hon’ble Apex Court occurring qua the aforesaid relevant apt facet, it is deemed not befitting to conclude of the adoption by the learned MACT of the view taken qua the relevant fact by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas ( 1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Verma (smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281 meriting any interference. Also it cannot be concluded qua its meeting deference thereto its committing a gross departure from the mandate of law nor also it can be concluded qua its award standing permeated with any gross illegality or impropriety. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed so also the pending applications, if any.