JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Having noticed divergence of views expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of U.P. State Road Transport corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir Singh, (2008) ACJ 814, Sarala Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Singh, (2011) 7 SCC 65 , Amrit Bhanu Shali Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2012 ACJ 2002 , Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 and Single Bench decisions of this High Court in Sh. Laldaihzauva Vs. Lalnunsangi, (2016) 4 GLR 708, New India Assurance Company Vs. Bhuban Chandra Bora, 2016 (5) GLJ 21, Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Shitamai Saikia, 2016 (2) GLT 653 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keteki Barua, 2014 (4) GLT 531, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for our consideration:- 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? 2. The facts leading to this reference in nutshell are that one Raja Ali was a bachelor, son of the claimant. On 27.12.2008, Raja Ali was travelling in an Auto Van from Guwahati to Goalpara. Unfortunately, on way, another vehicle coming from the opposite direction collided with his vehicle. On account of the aforesaid accident, two persons including Raja Ali died on the spot. While hearing the appeal, learned Single Judge noticed divergence of views taken by the Supreme Court in its various decisions as well as decisions of this High Court referred to in the preceding paragraph and has referred the above quoted question for our consideration. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra (supra) while dealing with claim of parents for death of their unmarried son has held that selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of deceased and the age of the parents would also be relevant in selecting a multiplier. Also, in the case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak (supra), another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with a claim by parents on account of death of their bachelor son and took a similar view that multiplier should be selected taking into account the age of the dependents, namely, the parents. It is however pertinent to note that in this case, the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) was not noticed by the Supreme Court. Even later, in the case of Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir Singh (supra), a Division Bench of the Supreme Court took note of the decision rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie and held that the High Court did not commit any illegality in applying the multiplier by taking into account the age of the parents of deceased. 4. But, subsequently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s (supra) case where the dependents were deceased’s widow, three minor children and parents held that multiplier should be selected with reference to the age of deceased. 5. However, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sham Singh (supra) approved the action of the Tribunal in selecting the multiplier of 8 by taking average age of the parents of deceased. And yet, in another case of Amri Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Limited (supra), a Division Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case for compensation by the parents and sister for the death of a bachelor followed the ratio laid down in the case of Sarala Verma and held that selection of multiplier should be based on the age of deceased and not on the age of dependent. 6. 6. Thereafter, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the following two questions for consideration by a larger Bench:- (i) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be scrupulously applied in all cases? (ii) Whether for determination of multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion particularly as regards determination of future prospects? 7. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (supra) thereupon answered the reference in the following terms:- 1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, in death cases where the age of deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunal shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column 4 of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma’s case read with Para 42 of that judgment. 2. In cases where the age of deceased is up to 15 years irrespective of Section 166 or 163 A under which the claim for compensation has been made, the 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’s case should be followed. 3. As a result of 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 Claims Tribunal to seek guidelines or for placing reliance in Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 4. The Claims Tribunal shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in Para 19 of Sarla Verma’s case for determination of compensation in cases of deaths. 5. While making addition to the income for future prospects, the Tribunal shall follow Para 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma. 6. In so far the deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunal shall ordinarily follow the standards described in Paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case subject to observations made by us in Para 41 above. 8. Thereafter, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (supra), followed its earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench rendered in Reshma Kumari (supra) and held that multiplier has to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased. 9. 8. Thereafter, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (supra), followed its earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench rendered in Reshma Kumari (supra) and held that multiplier has to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased. 9. But, recently vide judgment dated 15.2.2017, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Meena Vs. Rani Ammal, relying upon the decision of Trilok Chandra (supra), while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 34648/2015, at the motion hearing stage, summarily disposed of the appeal in the following terms: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER: Delay condoned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied that the age of the deceased should have been taken for the purpose of determining the multiplier. It is now well-settled particularly after the decision of a Bench of 3-Judges in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 612 that ordinarily in the case of the death of a bachelor the age of the dependent parents should be taken for determining the multiplier. Consequently, we do not accept the contrary submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. It is then submitted that future prospects have not been taken into account by the High Court and that should also have been considered. In our opinion, keeping this in mind, it would be in the interest of justice, particularly since the deceased is a bachelor that a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) be awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition. The amount be paid within a period of two months from today. Needless to say, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) will include the amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The special leave petition is disposed of.” 10. The amount be paid within a period of two months from today. Needless to say, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) will include the amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The special leave petition is disposed of.” 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). It is also relevant to mention that decision in the case of Trilok Chandra was noticed 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 in the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra). It is well settled in law that an order passed by the Supreme Court at the motion hearing stage cannot be treated as precedent. (See State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 . Therefore, the Division Bench decision of the Supreme court in the case of Mina vs. Rani Ammal (supra) does not alter the legal position which emerges after two decisions of the three-Judge 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 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. 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. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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. 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. Let the matter be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.