JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 22nd July, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 52 of 2009, titled as Bimla Devi and others versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.12,66,280/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The question is whether the insurer can question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 5. The perusal of the record does disclose that the insurer had filed an application in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 7th November, 2009. The driver of the offending vehicle had died in the accident. The owner-insured has not seriously contested the claim petition, thus, the insurer was well within its rights to contest the claim petition on all grounds. 6. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as United India Insurance co. Ltd. Versus Shila Datta & Ors., reported in, 2011 AIR SCW 6541. 7. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Josphine James versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 6633. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 17 and 18 of the judgment herein: “8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the High Court in MAC Appeal no. 433/2005 and the review petition, the present appeal is filed by the appellant urging certain grounds and assailing the impugned judgment in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company without following the law laid down by this Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi's case and instead, placing reliance upon the Bhushan Sachdeva's case. 433/2005 and the review petition, the present appeal is filed by the appellant urging certain grounds and assailing the impugned judgment in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company without following the law laid down by this Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi's case and instead, placing reliance upon the Bhushan Sachdeva's case. Nicolletta Rohtagi's case was exhaustively discussed by a three judge bench in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Shila Datta, 2011 10 SCC 509 . Though the Court has expressed its reservations against the correctness of the legal position in Nicolletta Rohtagi decision on various aspects, the same has been referred to higher bench and has not been overruled as yet. Hence, the ratio of Nicolletta Rohtagi's case will be still applicable in the present case. The appellant claimed that interference by the High Court with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of appellant and considerably reducing the same by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated in law. Therefore, the impugned judgments and awards are liable to be set aside. 9. to 16. ........... 17. The said order was reviewed by the High Court at the instance of the appellant in view of the aforesaid decision on the question of maintainability of the appeal of the Insurance Company. The High Court, in the review petition, has further reduced the compensation to Rs.4,20,000/- from Rs.6,75,000/- which was earlier awarded by it. This approach is contrary to the facts and law laid down by this Court. The High Court, in reducing the quantum of compensation under the heading of loss of dependency of the appellant, was required to follow the decision rendered by three judge Bench of this Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi case (2002) 7 SCC 456 : AIR 2002 SC 3350 : 2002 AIR SCW 3899, and earlier decisions wherein this Court after interpreting Section 170(b) of the M. V. Act, has rightly held that in the absence of permission obtained by the Insurance Company from the Tribunal to avail the defence of the insured, it is not permitted to contest the case on merits. The aforesaid legal principle is applicable to the fact situation in view of the three judge bench decision referred to though the correctness of the aforesaid decision is referred to larger bench. The aforesaid legal principle is applicable to the fact situation in view of the three judge bench decision referred to though the correctness of the aforesaid decision is referred to larger bench. This important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and the said approach is contrary to law laid down by this Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Insurance Company is not entitled to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant for the reasons stated supra. In the absence of the same, the Insurance Company had only limited defence to contest in the proceedings as provided under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 13.1.2012 reducing the compensation to Rs.4,20,000/- under the heading of loss of dependency by deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.5,000/- and applying 14 multiplier, is factually and legally incorrect. The High Court has erroneously arrived at this amount by applying the principle of law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 instead of applying the principle laid down in Baby Radhika Gupta's case regarding the multiplier applied to the fact situation and also contrary to the law applicable regarding the maintainability of appeal of the Insurance Company on the question of quantum of compensation in the absence of permission to be obtained by it from the Tribunal under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act. In view of the aforesaid reason, the High Court should not have allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company as it has got limited defence as provided under section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is vitiated in law and hence, is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant.” 7. Having said so, the appeal is maintainable. 8. Even otherwise, the appeal in hand has been filed in terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the MV Act, which is in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”), thus, this Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating evidence. 9. 9. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as U.P.S.R.T.C. versus Km. Mamta and others, reported in, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 948. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the judgment herein: “24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. (See National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab & Anr. v. Navdeep Kuur & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 680 ” 10. Now, the question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is excessive? 11. I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. 12. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month, but they have failed to place on record any documentary proof. However, they have examined two witnesses, the perusal of whose statements-affidavits do disclose that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- Rs.300/- per day roughly. Thus, it can be safely said and held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.6,000/- per month. Even otherwise, the income of a daily wager or labourer, at the relevant point of time, was not more than Rs.200/- per day. Having said so, it is held that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. 13. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting one third towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants are seven in number. Thus, one fifth was to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased in terms of para 30 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,800/- per month. 14. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,800/- per month. 14. The deceased was 29 years of age at the time of the accident. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18' while keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma's case (supra), which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act. 15. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,800/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,36,800/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 16. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 17. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,36,800/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.10,76,800/- 18. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 19. It is beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in, (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in, 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in, (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 433 ; and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 20. 20. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 21. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,76,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 22. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 23. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the insurer through payee's account cheque. 24. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 25. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.