JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mir Alfaz Ali, J. Unsatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in MAC Case No. 315/2009, the claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement. 2. The undisputed facts which are relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.12.2008, late Raja Ali, unmarried son of the claimant, Yunus Ali was travelling in an Auto Van bearing registration No. AS-01/DC-345 from Guwahati towards Goalpara. Another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/AC-3717 was coming from the opposite direction and collided with the vehicle in which late Raja Ali was travelling. As a result of the accident, two persons including the son of the claimant died instantaneously. The vehicle No. AS-01/AC-3717 was insured with Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 1. 3. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate, and therefore, pressed for enhancement of the award, particularly, on account of funeral expenses, future prospects and loss of dependency. So far the enhancement on account of funeral expenses and future prospects, are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents have not resisted such prayer seriously. Funeral Expenses: 5. Learned Tribunal in the instant case awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , minimum Rs. 25,000/- ought to have been awarded towards funeral expenses. In the case of Rajesh (supra), the Apex Court held that "therefore we are of the view that it will be just, equitable, fair and reasonable under the head of funeral expenses, in absence of evidence to the contrary, at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/-". In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that funeral expenses incurred by the claimant was more than 25,000/-. Therefore, in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra), funeral expenses deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Future Prospect: 6. 25,000/-". In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that funeral expenses incurred by the claimant was more than 25,000/-. Therefore, in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra), funeral expenses deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Future Prospect: 6. Learned Tribunal in the instant case added 30% of the income of the deceased to the actual income as future prospect. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was 20 years of age and therefore in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sontosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , 50% of the income ought to have been added to the actual income as future prospect. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the deceased was 20 years of age, future prospect should have been added to the extent of 50% and in my view, the claimant deserves enhancement of future prospect to the extent of 50% of the actual income in the instant case. Loss of Dependency : 7. In the case in hand, deceased being a bachelor and the claim petition having been filed by the father of the deceased, learned Tribunal took the multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claimant, for purpose of computing loss of dependency. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corp. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 ; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan reported in 2013 ACJ 1253, and Munnalal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 contended that multiplier ought to have been taken as 18 with reference to the age of the deceased, but the learned Tribunal committed an error by selecting multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claimant i.e. father of the deceased. 8. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S. Dutta and Mr. R. Goswami, appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal had rightly chosen the multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claimant/father, as the deceased was a bachelor. 8. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S. Dutta and Mr. R. Goswami, appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal had rightly chosen the multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claimant/father, as the deceased was a bachelor. Age of the deceased cannot be the sole criterion in choosing multiplier, particularly when deceased is bachelor and claim petition is filed by the parents, submits Mr. Dutta. Mr. Dutta further contended that as back as in 1996, a three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 , dealing with the principle of choosing multiplier, in case of claim by parents for death of the unmarried son, held that "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 dependants are his parents, age of the parents' would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier". Leaned counsel also placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ld. v. Charlie & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 720 , where the Apex Court held that "the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher)." 9. From the rival submission of both the sides, following question emerges for consideration in the present appeal. Whether age of the parents is relevant in choosing multiplier when claim petition is filed by the parents for death of the unmarried son/daughter? Or in other words, whether in all cases the age of the deceased is the sole criterion for choosing multiplier? 10. In Sarala Verma (supra), (two Judges bench) where, the dependant claimants, were the deceased's widow, three minor children and parents, the Apex Court held that multiplier should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased, the Apex Court has held as under: "19. ***** 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. ***** 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." 11. In the case of Amrit Bhanu (supra), where for death of a bachelor, his parents and sister filed the claim petition, the Apex Court following the ratio of Sarala Verma (supra), held as under : "19. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 12. In another decision in Reshma Kumari (supra), a three Judges Bench, while considering a reference made by a two Judges Bench on the question "whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in a case falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act", observed as under: "In Sarla Verma (supra), this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) that claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma (supra)" 13. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma (supra)" 13. The question of choosing multiplier again came before the Apex Court in the case of Munnalal Jain (supra), where claim petition was filed by parents for death of their unmarried son, aged 30 years, and the Apex Court (a three judges Bench) held as under: "The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). 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 dependants 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" 14. In another decision in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Smt. Shanti Pathak & Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 1 , where also deceased was bachelor and claim petition was filed by the parents, the Apex Court held as under: "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 accident and age of the father is more than 65 years." 15. Yet another decision in the case of Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh reported in 2008 ACJ 814 , the Apex Court held as under: "We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657 it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657 it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the trial court or before us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running 56th year of his life." 16. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam Singh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 65 , the Apex Court held as under: "10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Ramesh Singh case is applicable to the present case on all fours. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average age of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years." 17. In another latest decision in Mina & Ors. v. Rani Ammal & Anr., (decided on 15.02.2017) the Apex Court held as under: "Reason: It is now well-settled particularly after the decision of a Bench of 3-Judges in U.P. State Road 2 Transport Corporation and Others v. Trilok Chandra and others [(1996) 4 SCC 612] that ordinarily in the case of the death of a bachelor the age of the dependant parents should be taken for determining the multiplier. Consequently, we do not accept the contrary submission of leaned counsel for the petitioners in this regard." 18. What transpires from the above authorities is that in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra), the Apex Court made a distinction in respect of choosing multiplier in case of death of unmarried son and claim petition being filed by the parents. In Charlie & Anr. (supra) also more or less same view has been taken. Very recently in Mina & Ors. (decided on 15.02.2017) also the Apex Court strongly relied on Trilok Chandra (supra) for choosing multiplier whereas in another series of decisions, the Apex Court has taken the view, that only the age of the deceased is relevant in choosing multiplier. (supra) also more or less same view has been taken. Very recently in Mina & Ors. (decided on 15.02.2017) also the Apex Court strongly relied on Trilok Chandra (supra) for choosing multiplier whereas in another series of decisions, the Apex Court has taken the view, that only the age of the deceased is relevant in choosing multiplier. Because of such conflicting views of the Apex Court, rendered by co-equal Benches, the question necessarily arises, which of the decision of the co-equal Benches of the Apex Court will be binding on the High Court as rule of precedence under Article 141 of the Constitution. 19. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S. Dutta submitted that the earlier decision of co-equal bench of the Apex Court is binding on the subsequent co-equal benches and, in that view of the matter, this Court is also bound by the earlier decision of the co-equal bench and not the one, rendered in later point of time. In support of the submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra reported (2005) 2 SCC 673 , in which the Apex Court held as under: "Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the above said decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms :- (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. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. (3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions : (i) The above said rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) In spite of the rules laid down herein above, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh & Ors. and Hansoli Devi & Ors.(supra)." 20. In another decision in the case of Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 , the Apex Court held that: "It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was prior to the decision in T.V. Patel's case (supra). It is well settled that if a subsequent co-ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger bench, otherwise the prior decision of a co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was not noticed in T.V. Patel's case (supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was not noticed in T.V. Patel's case (supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court." 21. In Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi reported in (2011) 2 SCC 94 , the Apex Court held as under: "27. However, even assuming that the decision in W.P. No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided W.P. No. 304 of 2001 did not agree with the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength in the earlier W.P. No. 35561 of 1998 regarding the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Act and its application to the petition schedule property, judicial discipline and practise required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench. The learned Judges were not right in over-ruling the statement of the law by a Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength. It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well accepted and desirable practise is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench." 22. A Full bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators v. State of M.P. & Anr. reported AIR 2003 (MP) 81 while answering the question "in case of conflicting views between the decisions rendered by the co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, which views to be followed by the High Court as a binding precedent" held as under: "Having considered the matter with broader dimensions, we find that various High Courts have given different opinion on the question involved. Some hold that in case of conflict between two judgments on a point of law, later decision should be followed; while others say that the Court should follow the decision which is correct and accurate whether it is earlier or later. Some hold that in case of conflict between two judgments on a point of law, later decision should be followed; while others say that the Court should follow the decision which is correct and accurate whether it is earlier or later. There are High Courts which hold that decision of earlier Bench is binding because of the theory of binding precedent and Article 141 of the Constitution of India. There are also decisions which hold that Single Judge differing from another Single Judge decision should refer the case to Larger Bench, otherwise he is bound by it. Decisions which are rendered without considering the decisions expressing contrary view have no value as a precedent. But in our considered opinion, the position may be stated thus- With regard to the High Court, a Single Bench is bound by the decision of another Single Bench. In case, he does not agree with the view of the other Single Bench, he should refer the matter to the Larger Bench. Similarly, Division Bench is bound by the judgment of earlier Division Bench. In case, it does not agree with the view of the earlier Division Bench, it should refer the matter to Larger Bench. In case of conflict between judgments 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 which case the decision of later Division Bench shall be binding. The decision of Larger Bench is binding on Smaller Benches. In case of conflict between two decisions of the Apex Court, Benches comprising of equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding unless explained by the latter Bench of equal strength, in which case the later decision is binding. Decision of a Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. Therefore, the decision of earlier Division Bench, unless distinguished by latter Division Bench, is binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts. Similarly, in presence of Division Bench decisions and Larger Bench decisions, the decisions of Larger Bench are binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts. Decision of a Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. Therefore, the decision of earlier Division Bench, unless distinguished by latter Division Bench, is binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts. Similarly, in presence of Division Bench decisions and Larger Bench decisions, the decisions of Larger Bench are binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts. No decision of Apex Court has been brought to our notice which holds that in case of conflict between the two decisions by equal number of Judges, the later decision in binding in all circumstances, or the High Courts and Subordinate Courts can follow any decision which is found correct and accurate to the case under consideration. High Courts and Subordinate Courts should lack competence to interpret decisions of Apex Court since that would not only defeat what is envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but also militate hierarchical supremacy of Courts. The common thread which runs through various decisions of Apex Court seems to be that great value has to be attached to precedent which has taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the purpose of consistency and exactness in decisions of Court, unless the Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a precedent or is per incuriam, having been rendered without noticing some earlier precedents with which the Court agrees. Full Bench decision in Balbir Singh's case (supra) which holds that if there is conflict of views between the two co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, the High Court has to follow the judgment which appears to it to state the law more elaborately and more accurately and in conformity with the scheme of the Act, in our considered opinion, for reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, does not lay down the correct law as to application of precedent and is, therefore, over-ruled on this point." 23. Recently, the Delhi High Court was also confronted with the same issue. A single Bench of Delhi High Court in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lata Devi & Ors. in MAC Appl. Recently, the Delhi High Court was also confronted with the same issue. A single Bench of Delhi High Court in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lata Devi & Ors. in MAC Appl. 189/2014 reported in 2015 ACJ 2526 after considering various authorities held as under: "There is no manner of doubt that appropriate multiplier while awarding compensation for the death of an unmarried boy, the multiplier will be selected on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased." 24. A Single Bench of this Court in SH. Laldaihzauva v. Lalnunsangi & Anr. reported in (2016) 4 GLR 708, after considering various authorities, held as under: "23. The Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain (Supra) has not made any discussion with regard to the choice of multiplier to be applied in a case where the claimant is the parent/father-in-law of the deceased. Also the fact situation in Reshma Kumari (Supra), which was applied in Munna Lal Jain (Supra) is completely different as the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above, the choice of multiplier used in Munna Lal Jain (Supra) cannot be said to be the binding precedent for choosing a multiplier for calculating the compensation to be awarded where the claimant is older than the deceased. 24. .. However, the learned Tribunal should keep in mind the fact that the principles governing assessment of compensation with regard to the choice of the multiplier as determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher is still a binding perspective till today, as the same has not been overruled by larger Bench of the Apex Court." 25. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhuban Chandra Bora reported in 2016 (5) GLJ 21, another Single Bench of this High Court took the similar view and held as under: "22. I have also found that in the terms of the law laid down in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others (supra), the Tribunal ought to have used multiplier of 14, basing on the age of mother of the deceased on the date of incident in question instead of using multiplier 17 on the basis of age of the deceased on the date of incident." 26. However, in another decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Shitamai Saikia & Anr. However, in another decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Shitamai Saikia & Anr. reported in 2016 (2) GLT 653, Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court took the view that multiplier is to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased. Yet in another decision of this Court in National Insurance Col. Ltd. v. Keteki Barua, reported in 2014 (4) GLT 531, where claim petition was filed by mother and brother of the deceased, Hon'ble Single Judge held as under... "12. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 14 when it had held that the deceased was in the age group of 41 to 45 years." 27. What therefore transpires is that Hon'ble Single Benches of this Court have also taken two different views on the issue of choosing multiplier, particularly, in respect of claim petition filed by the parents for death of unmarried son/daughter. Because of the conflicting views of the Apex Court as well as this High court, on the vital issue of choosing multiplier, the Tribunals under the jurisdiction of this High Court are in dilemma and there is no uniformity in determination of just, fair and reasonable compensation by the Tribunals. It needs no mention that multiplier method has been adopted as the best method for determining the just, fair and reasonable compensation for the victim of motor vehicular accident. Because the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand, having regard to the circumstances of the case by appropriate multiplier. Therefore, choosing the appropriate multiplier is extremely important for determining just compensation. 28. As various Single Benches of this Court have already taken two different views on the point formulated for decision in this appeal, I am of the view that it will not be proper for this Bench to decide the matter. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order 29. The matter being urgent, Registry shall place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice within a week of this judgment.