JUDGMENT : The claimants-appellants have challenged the legality of the award dated 21.6.2012, passed by the Fast Track Court-II and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, whereby for the death of Ashraf, the parents and the brothers and a sister have been granted a compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 7.5.2011, around 4.15 PM, Ashraf and his friend, Nazeeb Khan, were going in Maruthi A Star car, bearing registration No. KA-12-P674, from Kushalanagara to Periyapatna. While they were driving on B.M. Road, near the Chowdenahalli Village, Periyapatna Taluk, a KSRTC bus coming from the opposite direction, also being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the Maruthi car. Due to the collusion between the two vehicles, the car was completely damaged, and the driver and Ashraf sustained severe injuries. Ashraf sustained injuries on his face, chest and other vital parts of the body; he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Although Nazeeb Khan was removed from the site of the accident, subsequently he, too, succumbed to the injuries. Having lost their sole bread earner, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Smt. Kadheeja, appellant No.1, before this Court, examined herself as a witness, and submitted twenty-nine documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined two witnesses, and submitted ten documents. After assessing the evidence, the Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this Appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 4. Ms. Suma Kedilaya, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two contentions before this Court: firstly, relying on the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 she has pleaded that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased, Ashraf, instead of taking the age of the parents, for selecting the proper multiplier. According to the learned counsel, even if the deceased happened to be a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased that should be taken as the basis for selecting the correct multiplier. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the age of the parents in order to select the multiplier of ‘13’. 5. According to the learned counsel, even if the deceased happened to be a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased that should be taken as the basis for selecting the correct multiplier. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the age of the parents in order to select the multiplier of ‘13’. 5. Secondly, again relying on the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra) she has pleaded that while deducting the amount the bachelor deceased would have spent on himself, the learned Tribunal should not have deducted 50% of the income as his personal living expenses. Since Ashraf had to look after a large family consisting of his aged parents, three brothers, and a sister, the extent of the income that he would have spent on himself should have been taken as 1/3rd and not 50%. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the income as the amount Ashraf would have spent on himself. Hence, the loss of dependency needs to be re-calculated by this Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has relied on the case of Meena And Others Vs. Rani Ammal And Another [Spl. Leave to Appeal (C) No. 36468/2015, decided on 15.2.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court], in order to plead that in the case of death of a bachelor, the age of the dependent parents should be taken for determining the multiplier. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the age of the parents in order to select the proper multiplier. He has further pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cited its earlier judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly stated that in the case of death of a bachelor, it should be the age of the parents which should be considered for selecting the proper multiplier. Secondly, the parents have not led any evidence to prove the fact that the brothers and sister were financially dependant upon the deceased. Thus, the brothers and sister, who have the benefit of their parent’s income would not have been financially dependant on the deceased. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% of the income that Ashraf would have spent upon himself. Thus, the brothers and sister, who have the benefit of their parent’s income would not have been financially dependant on the deceased. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% of the income that Ashraf would have spent upon himself. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 8. It is trite to state that over a period of time judicial thinking may change on a particular issue. Therefore, periodically the creases which may occur in a particular law need to be ironed out by the Apex Court. 9. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had noticed that due to different interpretations given by a series of judgments with regard to the use of the multiplier, namely in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 , in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) and in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , it had become imperative for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to settle the inconsistencies which were introduced by the different interpretations in these cases. Therefore, in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only reconciled the different interpretation by formulating a schedule for the selection of a correct multiplier, but also prescribed the procedure to be adopted by the learned Tribunal for determining compensation in the case of death. 10. In para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has clearly stated that basically three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death, namely: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. (emphasis added) 11. In para 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delineated the three steps which need to be taken by the learned Tribunal as under:- 19. (emphasis added) 11. In para 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delineated the three steps which need to be taken by the learned Tribunal as under:- 19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. (emphasis added) Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added. 12. A bare perusal of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment clearly reveals that consistently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has harped on the fact that the crucial factor for the selection of the multiplier is “the age of the deceased”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not made any distinction between the case of a bachelor, and the case of married person, who has died in an accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not made any distinction between the case of a bachelor, and the case of married person, who has died in an accident. Thus, according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the basis for selecting the proper multiplier is “the age of the deceased” regardless of his marital status. Keeping this in mind, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has prescribed a schedule in paragraph 40 of the judgment. The schedule also deals with the multiplier up to the age of 50 years, and also deal with the age group of 15-20 years. Although the Apex Court may not have opined, but the fact remains that legally an adult male is permitted to marry at the age of 21 years. Therefore, the age group up to 15, and the age group of 15-20 years would perforce include “the bachelors” and not “married persons”. In paragraph 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as under :- 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. 13. Therefore, even according to the Apex Court in case the age of the deceased happens to be between the age group of 15-21 years and between the age group of 21-35 years, (the age group that would certainly include bachelors), the multiplier that should be applied is ‘18’. Thus, the case of Sarla Verma (supra) does not distinguish the selection of the multiplier on the basis of the marital status of the deceased. 14. Although it is true that in para 38 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quoted paras 17 and 18 from the case of Trilok Chandra (supra). 14. Although it is true that in para 38 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quoted paras 17 and 18 from the case of Trilok Chandra (supra). In para 18 in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under: Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier......What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. 15. Merely because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quoted the said para would not make it the ratio of the case. In fact, the ratio of the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is contained in paras 40, 41 and 42 which strictly deals with the selection of multiplier. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not justified in harping upon para 18 extracted from the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 16. In the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with two issues which were referred to the larger Bench, namely: (1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”) should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?” 17. While dealing with the first issue in its conclusion contained in para 43 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined as under :- (43.1) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment. (43.2) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed. (43.3) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. (43.4) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. 18. Thus, clearly even in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not made a distinction with regard to the selection of multiplier on the basis of marital status of the deceased. It has merely confirmed Sarla Verma (supra). 19. Even in the case of Munna Lal & Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 347 in a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges, the Apex Court has again relied upon the case of Reshma Kumari (supra). Therefore, the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, expressed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Reshma Kumari (supra) and in Munna Lal (supra), is that the age of the deceased, and not the age of the parents, is relevant for selecting the correct multiplier. 20. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the age of the parents in order to select the multiplier. Hence, the learned Tribunal was not justified in selecting the multiplier of ‘13’. Considering the fact at the time of his death, Ashraf was 28 years old, the multiplier of ‘17’ should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. 21. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), while dealing with the issue of deduction of personal and living expenses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of bachelor has observed as under:- 32. 21. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), while dealing with the issue of deduction of personal and living expenses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of bachelor has observed as under:- 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 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. 22. Thus, in case of a bachelor supporting a large family consisting of parents and large number of younger non-earning brothers and sisters, the amount to be deducted as his personal and living expenses, would be 1/3rd from his salary. The same view has been approved and quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra). Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in deducting 50% of the salary as the amount Ashraf would have spent upon himself. 23. Of course, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has tried to argue that there is no evidence to show that the brothers and sister were dependant upon the income of the deceased. However, Smt. Kadheeja (P.W.1) has clearly stated that the family was solely dependant on the income of the deceased. Considering the fact that at the time of the claim petition, the father happened to be 62 years, the likelihood is that the father was not an earning member. Moreover, the brothers and sister, left behind by Ashraf, were all minors. Thus, they were non-earning members of the family. Obviously, the present case is covered by the circumstances enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, taking a cue from the opinion expressed in Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as the amount that he would have spent on his own self. 24. Therefore, taking a cue from the opinion expressed in Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as the amount that he would have spent on his own self. 24. Hence, the loss of dependency needs to be recalculated by this Court, by taking the multiplier as ‘17’, and deducting 1/3rd from the salary of the deceased as the amount deceased would have spent on himself. Hence, the loss of dependency is re-assessed as under:- Rs.4,000-1/3rd (Rs.1,333/-) = Rs.2,667/- Rs.2,667 x 12 x 17 = Rs.5,44,068/- 25. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘transportation and funeral expenses’ is also on the lower side. Therefore, this Court enhances the said compensation to Rs.30,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection,’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘transportation and funeral expenses’. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,09,068/-, which is as under :- Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal Rs. As awarded by this Court Rs. Loss of dependency 3,12,000/- 5,44,068/- Loss of love & affection 10,000/- 30,000/- Loss of estate 10,000/- 10,000/- Transportation & funeral expenses 10,000/- 25,000/- Total 3,42,000/- 6,09,068/- 26. For the reasons stated above, this Appeal is allowed. The award dated 21.6.2012, is modified as above: the claimants-appellants are granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,67,068/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the claimants-appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period by which the filing of the appeal is delayed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The learned Tribunal is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants-appellants forthwith. 27. Recently in the case of Bhogireddi Varalakshmi & Ors. Vs. Mani Muthupandi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1195 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the issue of future prospects should be kept open by the High Courts. Therefore, the issue of future prospects shall be decided by this Court only after the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has expressed its opinion. Vs. Mani Muthupandi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1195 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the issue of future prospects should be kept open by the High Courts. Therefore, the issue of future prospects shall be decided by this Court only after the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has expressed its opinion. The learned counsel for the appellant shall be free to request that the appeal be taken on board, once the decision of the Larger Bench is pronounced.