JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. Office note dated 18.09.2017 states that A/D card has returned from respondent No. 2. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the case is being decided ex-parte the respondent No. 2 and also, the Order to be passed does not prejudice the respondent No. 2 in any way. 3. The appellant has filed the present appeal against Judgment & Award dated 19.05.2017, passed by the MACT, Aizawl in Mact Case No. 15/2016, by which an amount of Rs. 27,47,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing, i.e. 30.03.2016 was to be paid to the claimants by the appellant. 4. The case in brief is that the claimant Nos. 1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased bachelor Rualzachhinga, while the claimant No. 3 is the minor sister of the deceased Rualzachhinga. The deceased Rualzachhinga died at the age of 29 years due to a motor accident on 24.10.2015, when one Bus, i.e. Lai Night Super (Lawngtlai to Aizawl), in which he was travelling, bearing registration No. MZ 03-2155, belonging to respondent No. 2, met with an accident near Ramlaitui village. The said Bus ran off the main road and rolled down the cliff for about 120 metres. 5. The evidence adduced before the MACT, Aizawl was that the deceased Rualzachhinga was a professional driver, who drove his own Auto-Rickshaw. The Bus which rolled down the cliff was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident. The claimants filed the compensation claim before the MACT, Aizawl and the MACT, Aizawl thereafter awarded the sum of Rs. 27,47,600/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.03.2016 to the claimants. 6. The appellant's counsel submits that the impugned Judgment & Award dated 19.05.2017 passed in Mact Case No. 15/2016 should be interfered with as the learned Tribunal had only deducted one third of the income of the deceased before computing the compensation amount payable to the claimants. He submits that the learned Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income before computing the compensation amount to be awarded. He submits that the learned Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income before computing the compensation amount to be awarded. The second ground taken by the appellant's counsel is that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased, while the multiplier to be applied should have been on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. He also submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded 9% interest per annum, which should have been around 6.5% as per the present fixed deposit Bank rates. 7. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the learned Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier based upon the age of the claimant as per the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court. He also submits that the learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality in awarding 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount. He submits that this Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 01.08.2017 passed in MAC.App No. 2/2017, had also awarded 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount. He however fairly admits that the loss of dependency upon the claimants could not be beyond 50% of the salary of the deceased and accordingly, the learned Tribunal had erroneously calculated/taken into account more than 50% of the salary of the deceased for computing the compensation amount payable to the claimants. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The monthly income of the deceased Rualzachhinga has been taken by the learned Tribunal to be Rs. 11,000/- per month. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal made the following calculation for payment of the compensation amount as follows :- (1) Annual income Rs. 11100x12 = 133200 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect Rs. 133200x50 = 66600 100 (3) Loss of income 133200+66600x18x2 = 23,97,600 3 (4) Loss love and affection for parents Rs. 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000 (6) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 27,47,600/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs forty seven thousand six hundred) only. 10. 133200x50 = 66600 100 (3) Loss of income 133200+66600x18x2 = 23,97,600 3 (4) Loss love and affection for parents Rs. 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000 (6) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 27,47,600/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs forty seven thousand six hundred) only. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment & Order dated 11.07.2017, passed in MAC.App No. 128/2016 has held that the age of the parents is not relevant for selecting the multiplier and the multiplier has to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased. This finding of the Division Bench of this Court has been made after taking into account the fact that the 3 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra & Others, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 had been considered, explained and reiterated by two 3 Judges Bench in 2 (two) latter decisions of the Supreme Court, i.e., in Reshma Kumari & Others v. Madan Mohan & Another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain & Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 . In Reshma Kumari (Supra) and Munna Lal Jain (Supra), the Apex Court had held that the age of the deceased was to be considered for selection of the multiplier. Para 11, 12 & 13 of the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Division Bench in MAC.App. No. 128 of 2016 is reproduced below: "11. Besides that, it is important to note that decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 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 dependents 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. 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. 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 decision, the decision rendered in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Munna Lal Jain is binding on this Court. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that age of the parents is not relevant for selecting the multiplier and the multiplier has to be selected with reference to age of the deceased. Accordingly, the reference is answered." 11. In view of the Judgment & Order dated 11.07.2017, passed in MAC. App No. 128/2016, this Court holds that the learned Tribunal did not commit any infirmity in adopting the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. 12. In respect of loss of dependency of the claimants, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal had deducted only one third of the income of the deceased for the personal expense of the deceased and calculated 66 2/3% income of the deceased for coming to the compensation amount payable to the claimants. 12. In respect of loss of dependency of the claimants, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal had deducted only one third of the income of the deceased for the personal expense of the deceased and calculated 66 2/3% income of the deceased for coming to the compensation amount payable to the claimants. In the case of Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court has held that when the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expense, as it is assumed that the bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. "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." In the present case, the evidence adduced does not show that the family of the deceased is large. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Tribunal should have considered the compensation by considering only 50% of the income of the deceased and not by taking 66? % of the income of the deceased. 13. In view of the above, the compensation amount payable to the claimants would be as follows : (1) Annual income Rs. 11100x12 = 133200 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect Rs. 133200x50 = 66600 100 (3) Loss of income 133200+66600x18 = 17,98,200 2 (4) Loss love and affection for parents Rs. 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000 (6) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 21,48,200/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs forty eight thousand two hundred) only. 14. The third question that has to be decided is with regard to the interest payable on the compensation amount. 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000 (6) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 21,48,200/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs forty eight thousand two hundred) only. 14. The third question that has to be decided is with regard to the interest payable on the compensation amount. Though this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 01.08.2017 passed in MAC.App No. 2/2017 has granted 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount, this Court finds that the same cannot be applied to the present case in hand as the rates being offered by the Bank for fixed deposit of 1 year is presently 6.5% per annum. In the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 148 , the Apex Court has held at para 6 as follows : "6. The question as to what should be rate of interest, in the opinion of this Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time." In the above decision, the concurring judgment passed by Justice A.R Lakshmanan is as follows: "While concurring with the conclusion arrived at by my esteemed Brother, I would like to add the following few lines. 18. Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in Motor Accident Claim cases having regards to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter." 15. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum (SMT) & Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 9 , the Apex Court has held at para 24 as follows: "24. Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that "in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants." In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 , the Apex Court has followed the decision passed in Kaushnuma Begum (Supra) on the applicable rate of interest to be fixed on the compensation amount. 16. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court, the accepted basis for fixing the rate of interest to be fixed on the compensation amount payable to the claimants would be the Bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs. 16. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court, the accepted basis for fixing the rate of interest to be fixed on the compensation amount payable to the claimants would be the Bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs. 21,48,200/- shall carry with it interest @ 6.5% per annum w.e.f. 30.03.2016 till final payment, as that is the Bank rate of interest for fixed deposits for the year 2016/2017. 17. The appellant is accordingly directed to deposit Rs. 21,48,200/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing, i.e. 30.03.2016 within 2 (two) months from today. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 19.05.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 15/2016 by the MACT, Aizawl is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 18. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Send back the LCRs.