JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 1st May, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba (HP) (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.79 of 2009, titled as Smt. Sakeena Devi and others versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, owner insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer vehemently argued that the only dispute involved in this appeal is relating to the adequacy of compensation, which, on the face of it, is on higher side. Further stated that the insurer has contested the claim petition on all grounds, thus, is within its rights to file the appeal. 4. I leave the question open as to whether the permission in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) was sought and granted or not. But it appears that the amount awarded in terms of the impugned award is on higher side for the following reasons: 5. Admittedly, the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and was a photographer and driver by profession. The claimants have examined one Shri P.S. Kanwar, Senior Assistant from the office of District Tourism Officer, Chamba, as PW3, who has specifically stated that the deceased was registered with them as a photographer and was working at Khajiar, which is known as one of the famous tourist destinations in District Chamba throughout the world. Thus, it can be safely said and held that the deceased would have been earning not less than Rs.10,000/per month. However, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/, which has not been questioned by the claimants, is accordingly maintained. 6. Thus, it can be safely said and held that the deceased would have been earning not less than Rs.10,000/per month. However, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/, which has not been questioned by the claimants, is accordingly maintained. 6. The Tribunal has rightly deducted one third towards his personal expenses in view 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 , 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, and held that the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of Rs.6,667/- per month, i.e. Rs.80,000/per annum. 7. However, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of 17', multiplier of 16' was to be applied while keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma's and Reshma Kumar's cases (supra) read with the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act. 8. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000 x 16 = Rs.12,80,000/under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 9. The compensation awarded under other heads, i.e. Rs.40,000/under the head 'loss of consortium', Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses etc.' has not been questioned, thus, is accordingly maintained. 10. The Tribunal has also committed a legal mistake while awarding interest @ 12% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.12,80,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.13,70,000/- 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 claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective 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.