ORDER : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is a Motor Accident Claims appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2016 passed by the member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mokokchung in MAC Case No. 13/2015. Heard Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned C.G.C. appearing on behalf of the appellants (respondents in the claim case) and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, assisted by Mr. Reopi, learned counsel for the respondents(claimants). 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- On 9.7.2015, the deceased Mr. Imkumeren Ao Constable No. 11096 of 2nd NAP was pillion riding on a Motorcycle driven by his friend Mr. Sarentsungba who was also a Constable of the same battalion and were driving towards Mokokchung from Tuli on National Highway 2. While driving as such, they came across a convoy of 3 MGAR who were also travelling towards the same destination. As they wanted to move ahead of the convoy, they started taking over the vehicles of the convoy one after the other including the vehicle bearing registration No. AS03-AC-0551 which was also a part of the convoy. After crossing the vehicle, they saw some bamboos which had fallen on the ground around the turning of the road. At that point of time, the driver of the Motor Cycle slowed down and at that moment they were hit from behind by the truck bearing registration No. AS03-AC/0551 of the 3 MGAR. In the accident the driver of the Motorcycle survived but the pillion rider Mr. Imkumeren Ao died on the spot. Following the accident, a police case was registered at Tuli being Tuli P.S. Case No. 001/15 under section 279/304-A/337 IPC. After all the formalities including the post mortem were completed, the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mokokchung claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,03,840/-. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties framed 2 issues:- (1) Whether the vehicle R/No. AS-03-AC/05 51 crushed the deceased Imkumeren Ao by rash and negligent driving of the driver? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extend and payable by whom? 3. After framing the issues, the parties were given the chance to produce their witnesses. Accordingly, the petitioner/claimants produced 4 witnesses and the appellants/respondents produced 6 witnesses. (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extend and payable by whom? 3. After framing the issues, the parties were given the chance to produce their witnesses. Accordingly, the petitioner/claimants produced 4 witnesses and the appellants/respondents produced 6 witnesses. After the deposition of the witnesses were recorded, the learned Tribunal heard the parties and came to the conclusion that it was the vehicle of the 3 MGAR bearing registration No. AS-03-AC/0551 which caused the accident and death of the deceased Mr. Imkumeren Ao due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to get compensation from the appellants/respondents. The operative portion of the judgment is given here below:- "On the above grounds, this Tribunal work out the compensation as per the decision rendered for U/s. 166 M.V. Act, 1988 compensation in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9SCC wherein it decided: for bachelor person would tend to spent more on his personal needs and life style so deduction of 50% from Annual Income shall be justified. The future prospect as decided in Rajesh v. Rajveer Singh (2013) 9 SCC of 50% is also applied in this application as the deceased is regular employee with all future prospects. The age multiplier applied as per decision rendered in Smti. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6)SCC 121 R/W Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (in Bachelor deceased) the multiplier applicable to the age of deceased Imkumeren at 25 years at the time of death, hence Multiplier of 18 would be the compensation. Therefore, for just compensation is work out as follows in this formula on the above decided case: 17,032/- (Total monthly income) + 8,516/- (half percent future interest)= 25,548/- (Total income per month) -50% (fifty percent deduction on bachelor)= 12,774/- Monthly income per month X 12=1,53,288/- (Yearly income) X 18 (Multiplier as per the age of deceased) = Rs. 27,59,184/- + Rs. 3000/- for funeral expenses. Grant total compensation Rs. 27,62,184/- =. Thereafter, deduction of Interim Award already drawn is Rs. 50,000/-=. Thus, net payable is Rs. 27,12,184/-= Net payable say (Rupees twenty seven lakh twelve thousand one hundred eighty four) only. Final Award. The claimants are hereby awarded Rs. 27,12,184/- (Rupees twenty seven lakh twelve thousand one hundred eighty four) only, excluding interim Award already drawn. The respondent No. 3 is liable. 50,000/-=. Thus, net payable is Rs. 27,12,184/-= Net payable say (Rupees twenty seven lakh twelve thousand one hundred eighty four) only. Final Award. The claimants are hereby awarded Rs. 27,12,184/- (Rupees twenty seven lakh twelve thousand one hundred eighty four) only, excluding interim Award already drawn. The respondent No. 3 is liable. However, the Respondent No. 1 & 2 shall indemnify the Respondent No. 3, in this Application within 60(sixty) days. Failing to pay shall entail 09(nine) percent simple interest shall accrue on the Respondent No. 1 & 2 from the date of filing of this Application till realization. The apportioned of the present compensation awarded among the claimants that is Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) only for each Claimant No. 1 & 2 and Rs. 7,12,184/- (Seven lakh twelve thousand one hundred eighty four) only shall be shared by Applicant No. 3 & 4. This Tribunal, hereby directed the Respondent No. 2&3 to deposit the final Awarded amount by cheque or demand draft to this Tribunal for proper verification and disbursement to the Claimants. This disposed this Application." 4. Not satisfied with the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the appellants approached this Court under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988. The main contention of the appellants are: (1) That the learned Tribunal have failed to appreciate the material evidence given by the DWs which clearly shows that the alleged offending vehicle was not the vehicle which caused the accident and death of Mr. Imkumeren Ao. (2) That as per the settled principles of law, the multiplier which should have been adopted while calculating the compensation should have been in relation to the age of the mother and not that of the deceased. (3) That interest granted at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side. 5. On the first point of contention raised by the appellants, Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned CGC submitted that Mr. Nilutpal Mech who gave statement under section 164 Cr.PC before the CJM Mokokchung and on whose statement the Tribunal heavily relied on was not the driver of the bus hired by the appellants. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should not have relied upon his statement. After having gone through the evidence given by Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned CGC submitted that Mr. Nilutpal Mech who gave statement under section 164 Cr.PC before the CJM Mokokchung and on whose statement the Tribunal heavily relied on was not the driver of the bus hired by the appellants. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should not have relied upon his statement. After having gone through the evidence given by Mr. Sarentsungba who was the driver of the Motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding when the accident took place, there is nothing to doubt that the vehicle of the respondents bearing registration No. AS-03-AC/0551 was the offending vehicle which hit the Motorcycle from behind and caused the accident and death of the deceased. Since the evidence given by this witness is so clear and reliable, I find no necessity in going into details of the evidences given by the other witnesses. It may also be stated here that Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation where strict rules of evidence need not be applied. It is sufficient if preponderance of probabilities is established by the claimants. In this case, more than preponderance of probabilities, the rider of the Motorcycle has clearly and sufficiently proved the accident which caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the first contention of the appellants failed. 6. Coming to the multiplier to be adopted, it is submitted by Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants that the law in this has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smti Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , (at paragraph 32, 33 and 42) that it is the age of deceased or claimant whichever is higher that should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier given in the same judgment. Therefore, in this case the age of the mother who is one of the claimants which should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier. The contents of the paragraphs cited are reproduced herein below:- "32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. The contents of the paragraphs cited are reproduced herein below:- "32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large: and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of - younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 33. In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated the principle relating to multiplier thus: "The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000/-. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually, the multiplier in this case work out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalize the loss of the annual dependency at Rupees 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lumpsum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc., Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up." 42. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up." 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 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 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. Recently on 10.07.2017 a Division Bench of this High Court passed a judgment in the case of Eunus Ali v. The Branch Manager (Legal) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in (3) GLT 817: MAC Appeal No. 128/2016 (unreported) wherein it has been held that it is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 and the case of Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 which has to be followed as far as the multiplier to be adopted is concerned. The para-10, 11 & 12 of the judgment are relevant and the same are given here below; "10. Thus, from narration of the decisions referred by us in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that there are two conflicting views taken by three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, namely, in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) where it is held that age of the parents would be relevant in the choice of multiplier whereas in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) a contrary view has been taken holding that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of deceased. The aforesaid decision has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra). The aforesaid decision has been followed by another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra). It is also relevant to mention that decision in the case of Trilok Chandra was notice by the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and thereafter the legal position with reference to selection of multiplier was further explained and clarified by the Supreme Court at the motion hearing stage cannot be treated as precedent. (See State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 . Therefore, the Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mina v. Rani Ammal (supra) does not alter the legal position which emerges after two decisions of the three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Munna Lal Jain. 11. Besides that, it is important to note that decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court is the case of Trilok Chandra has been considered, explained and reiterated by three-Judge Bench in two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Munna Lal Jain, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has explained the ratio in Reshma Kumari as follows; "Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased. has been hanging fire for some time, but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependents is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc. is to be taken." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sandhu v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 514 has held that in case of conflict of co-ordinate Benches of equal strength, the latter decision has to be followed specially when earlier decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench has been explained. is to be taken." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sandhu v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 514 has held that in case of conflict of co-ordinate Benches of equal strength, the latter decision has to be followed specially when earlier decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench has been explained. Similar View has been taken by a five-Judge Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003(MP) 81 wherein it is held that in case of conflict of two Division Benches of equal strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed except when it is explained by the latter Division Bench. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into account the principle of stare decisis, the decision rendered in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Munna Lal Jain is binding on this Court". From the above judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court, it is now settled that it is the age of the deceased which should be taken into account for determining the multiplier to be adopted in cases under section 166 M.V. Act. In view of this, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal i.e. by taking into consideration the age of the deceased need no interference. As such, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal i.e. 18 shall remain as it is. Consequently, the award amount also need no interference. Therefore, the same is not interfere with. 8. Now coming to the interest rate, all over the country, the Courts have been more or less uniform in their decisions on this. In such cases, the normal interest granted by the Courts is 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the expiry of the period of one month from the date of judgment and 9% per annum thereafter. I find no reason to differ from this. Therefore, the interest granted by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum is modified to that extent. 9. In view of the discussions and conclusions arrived at, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above. 10. It is submitted by both the learned counsels that interim award of Rs. 50,000/-has already been given to the respondents/claimants. As such, the same should be deducted from the final award. 9. In view of the discussions and conclusions arrived at, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above. 10. It is submitted by both the learned counsels that interim award of Rs. 50,000/-has already been given to the respondents/claimants. As such, the same should be deducted from the final award. Registry shall return the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) deposited by the appellants. With this the appeal is disposed of. Return the LCR. Disposed off