JUDGMENT N.M. Jamdar, J -This civil review application is placed before us pursuant to an order passed by the learned Chief Justice constituting a Larger Bench to decide the issue raised by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 28 April 2017. 2. The Review Applicants were the Claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji. The Applicants had a son by name Raymond Anthony Marques aged 20 years. Raymond was a sportsman, a footballer, and was recipient of several State awards. He had represented Goa State in the National and International Football games. When he was travelling on his motor cycle on National Highway-17, he met with an accident as a bus ran over him. Raymond died on the spot. 3. The Applicants, his parents moved a claim in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and sought compensation of Rs. 2500000/-. The Insurance Company resisted the claim. The Tribunal, after considering the material placed on record, granted compensation of Rs. 628500/- by Judgment and Award dated 10 February 2012, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. A First Appeal No. 31 of 2012 was filed by the Claimants in this Court. The learned Single Judge (K.L. Wadane, J.) partly allowed the Appeal and directed the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 891000/- jointly and severally to the Claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the Petition till its realisation. 4. Thereafter, a Review Application was filed by the Appellants-Claimants being Civil Application (Review) No.35 of 2016. The Applicants sought review of the Judgment and Order dated 9 June 2015 to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The Review Application came up before the another learned Single Judge (M.S. Sonak, J.) since Wadane, J. who had delivered the Judgment dated 9 June 2015, was not available. Sonak, J. found that the question that arises for consideration was whether the age of the deceased or the age of the Claimants is relevant for determining the multiplier. Sonak, J. referred to divergent views taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sobha Amarsingh Rajput and ors. (F.A.No.738/2015), and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Hanamava Yamnappa Jedi and ors. (F.A. No.13/2014). Sonak, J. referred to divergent views taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sobha Amarsingh Rajput and ors. (F.A.No.738/2015), and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Hanamava Yamnappa Jedi and ors. (F.A. No.13/2014). After analysing these decisions, Sonak, J. was of the opinion that the divergence in the view taken as regards whose age should be considered for applying the multiplier when the deceased is a bachelor, whether the age should be that of the deceased or of the Claimants, needs to be decided by a Larger Bench. 5. The issue that referred is when the deceased is not married, whether his age of the deceased should be taken into consideration for applying the multiplier or the age of the claimants, his parents. 6. While the present proceedings were pending and that the learned Single Judge had made a request for reference, a group of Special Leave Petitions was placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the difference of opinion between the decisions of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan , (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh , (2013) 9 SCC 54 , and the decision of the Three Judge Bench. Considering the divergent views taken, the Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa , (2015) 9 SCC 166 , had referred the matter to the Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement. The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd.. vs. Pranay Sethy & ors., 2017 SCCOnLine(SC) 1270, reviewed the entire case law and as regards the issue as to whose age should be taken as base for applying the multiplier, the Constitution Bench laid down that it should be the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the Constitution Bench laid down the position of law by Judgment pronounced on 31 October 2017. 7. Again the issue arose before the Three Judge Bench in the case of Sube Singh & Anr. vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Ors. , (2018) 3 SCC 18 , as regards the age for application of the multiplier. In the case of Sube Singh a deceased was 23 years of age when he died. The parents moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Ors. , (2018) 3 SCC 18 , as regards the age for application of the multiplier. In the case of Sube Singh a deceased was 23 years of age when he died. The parents moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Three Judge Bench in Sube Singh following the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi held that it shall be the age of the deceased that should be taken into consideration for applying the multiplier. 8. In the case of Ramrao Lala Borse and anr. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and arn., Civil Appeal No.418/2018, the three judge bench was dealing with a case where the deceased was a bachelor and claimants were his parents. In this case also, the Supreme Court following the law laid down in Pranay Sethi, categorically held that the correct multiplier to be applied would be taking into consideration the age of the deceased. 9. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, and the decisions of the benches of the three judges of the Supreme Court in Sube Sing and Ramrao Lala Borse have clarified the legal position that when the deceased is a bachelor, the age of the deceased shall be taken for applying the multiplier. Thus, the very issue that is referred to us by the learned Single Judge has been answered by the Supreme Court in the above terms. 10. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue referred already stands concluded by these decisions of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, Sube Sing and Ramrao Lala Borse by holding that even in cases where the deceased is a bachelor and his parents are claiming compensation, it shall be the age of the deceased which shall be taken into consideration while applying the multiplier. This is the correct position. 11. Registry will take appropriate steps to place the Review Application before the learned Single Judge.