JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 3rd May, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba (HP) (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.17 of 2009, titled as Amar Singh versus Sh. Virender Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,54,000/with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant and 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 only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant insurer was asked to show as to whether the appellant insurer can question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation? 5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the insurer has sought permission before the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), which was granted and the insurer has contested the claim petition on all the grounds. Learned counsel for the respondents also admitted the said factum. Perusal of the record does disclose that the insurer has sought permission and the same was granted. 6. In the given circumstances, the question is – whether the amount awarded is adequate? It appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the compensation. Thus, I deem it proper to assess the compensation herein by exercising the powers under Section 173 of the MV Act and Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”). 7. Admittedly, the deceased was 40 years of age and was bachelor at the time of the accident. Keeping in view the discussions made by the Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned award, it can be safely said and held that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.4,000/per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month. 8. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month. 8. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of 16', multiplier of 14' was to be applied while keeping in view the ratio laid down 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 , which has been 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. 9. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.3,36,000/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 10. The compensation awarded under other heads, i.e. Rs.40,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.30,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection' has not been questioned, thus, is accordingly maintained. 11. The Tribunal has also committed a legal mistake while awarding interest @ 12% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 12. It is a 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. 13. 13. 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. 14. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.4,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 14. In view of the above, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 15. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 16. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant-insurer through payee's account cheque. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.