JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 8.8.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mau, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 15 of 2001 (Surjee Devi v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another), by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 6,71,030/- but considering the fact that it was a case of composite negligence, directed the respondent to pay only 50 % of the same i.e. Rs. 3,35,515/- and to recover remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3,35,515 from the driver/owner of the vehicle/insurance company alongwith 6 % interest from the date of institution of the claim petition to the date of actual payment. 3. The facts of this case in brief are that the husband of the petitioner while travelling with Jeep No. U.P. 54-A-2508 on 22.8.2000 met with an accident at about 02:00 P.M. with the bus No. U.A.Q. No. 9280 due to which husband of the petitioner Bechan Rajbhar died. Claim petition was filed by the appellant, in which the Tribunal has found that it was the case of composite negligence of the driver of the bus and driver of the jeep both. 4. The tribunal has found that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,846/- per month and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- from other sources i.e. singing etc. According to the Tribunal, the total income of the deceased was (Rs.20,000/- + 3846 X 12 =46,152 (Rs. 66,152/- annual). Out of which 1/3 rd amount was deducted from the total income. The Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 15 has ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was entitled for an amount of Rs. 6,71,030/- towards the compensation. 5. Considering the facts that it was a case of composite negligence, the Tribunal has directed to pay 50 % of the awarded amount from the respondent No. 1 and remaining 50 % from the owner of the jeep/driver /insurance company. 6. 6,71,030/- towards the compensation. 5. Considering the facts that it was a case of composite negligence, the Tribunal has directed to pay 50 % of the awarded amount from the respondent No. 1 and remaining 50 % from the owner of the jeep/driver /insurance company. 6. The aforesaid award has been challenged on the following grounds : I- In view of the fact that the Tribunal itself has found that it was a case of composite negligence, therefore, in view of the law down in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2015) 9 SCC 273 , it could not apportion the compensation to be payable by the two joint tortfeasors vis-a-vis the claimant. The other joint tortfeasor, after making the entire payment to the claimant, can recover the amount, if any, from the other joint tortfeasor either in execution proceedings or, if not impleaded, by means of an independent proceedings. II- The Tribunal has erred in not considering the future prospect, in the submission of Sri Ojha, in view of the Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 amended vide Notification No. 777/XXX-4-2011-4(3) 2010 dt. 26.9.2011, published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 4, Section (ka) dt. 26.9.2011, at least 30 percent, future prospect was to be granted to the appellant. III- He also contended that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding the lessor interest of 6 % at least it should have been 7% per annum. 7. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15, whereas in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , when the age of the deceased was in between 41 to 45 years, the multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in adding Rs. 20,000/- per year in the total income of the deceased as there was no proof of earning Rs. 20,000/-. He further contended that the Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules will not be applicable retrospectively as it came into force only w.e.f. 26th September, 2011 and here the accident took place in the year 2000. 20,000/- per year in the total income of the deceased as there was no proof of earning Rs. 20,000/-. He further contended that the Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules will not be applicable retrospectively as it came into force only w.e.f. 26th September, 2011 and here the accident took place in the year 2000. In respect of his submission he has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Beena Devi and others, 2014(7) ADJ 328 (DB), Allahabad High Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, so far as the first argument with regard to consequences of the composite negligence is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2015) 9 SCC 273 , as held as under: 7. A three judges Bench of the Supreme Court, making a distinction between contributory and composite negligence held that in case of composite negligence, the claimant can sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation from any one of them as the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. It is not permissible for the Tribunal to apportion the compensation to be payable by the two joint tortfeasors vis-a-vis the claimant. The other joint tortfeasor, after making the entire payment to the claimant, can recover the amount, if any, from the other joint tortfeasor either in execution proceedings or, if not impleaded, by means of an independent proceedings. 9. In view of the above decision the compensation determined by the Tribunal, as a whole can be recovered by the claimant-appellant from any one of the joint torfeasors i.e. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation or owner of the jeep/driver/insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the Tribunal has erred in not providing the future prospect, in view of the Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules Ins. By Noti. No. 777/XXX-4-2011-4(3) 2010 dt. 26.9.2011, published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 4, Section (ka) dt. 26.9.2011. 11. Sri Mishra, refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the division Bench judgment in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. By Noti. No. 777/XXX-4-2011-4(3) 2010 dt. 26.9.2011, published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 4, Section (ka) dt. 26.9.2011. 11. Sri Mishra, refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the division Bench judgment in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Beena Devi and others, 2014(7) ADJ 328 (DB), Allahabad High Court, the rule cannot be applied retrospectively. In his further submissions the accident took place in the year 2000, therefore, Rule of 2011 cannot be applied. 12. Taking into account the aforesaid judgment a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the First Appeal From Order No. 2190 of 2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Reena Tyagi and others, taking a note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Narayan Guin and others v. Niranjan Modak, AIR 1985 SC 111 , has held that if during the pendency of the appeal, any change in law occurs it has to be taken into account and the rights of the parties has to be governed according to the amended law. 13. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another and Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Reena Tyagi and others. We are of the opinion that the Rules 2011 can be applicable and in view of the Rule 220-A (3) (ii) in a case where the age of the deceased was in between 40 to 50 years, future prospect of 30% shall be added in the actual salary of the deceased. 14. In view of the fact that actual salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,846/- per month, 30 % of the same has to be added in the per month income as future prospects. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting a lessor amount towards the non pecuniary benefits. In his submission in view of the Rule 220-A (4) following amount was to be taken into consideration: (i) Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. In his submission in view of the Rule 220-A (4) following amount was to be taken into consideration: (i) Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (iv) Funeral expenses, costs of transportation of body Rs. 5,000/- or actual expenses whichever is less (v) Medical expenses Actual expenses proved to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal. 16. We have gone through the award and find that while considering non-pecuniary benefits, the Tribunal has erred in granting the lessor amount towards the loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc. therefore, we provide the following amount towards the non-pecuniary amount: Non-pecuniary damage (i) Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- (ii) Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- (iv) Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has next contended that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding 6 % interest from the date of institution of the claim petition to the date of actual payment. In his submission, in view of the Rule 220-A (6) at least 7 % interest ought to have been awarded. 18. In view of the fact that the relevant Rules 2011 is attracted, therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 6 % interest which ought to have been awarded 7 % per annum as provided under Rule 220-A (6) of the rules rather than 6% interest per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 19. After considering the totality of the circumstances and the observations made herein above, we direct the respondent No. 1 to pay the following amount as detailed in the chart below: 1. Annual Income from salary and other   sources Rs. 46,152 + 20,000 = 66,152/- 2. After adding 30% of salary as future prospects, annual income comes to Rs. 66,152 + 13,846 = 79,998/- 3. 1/3 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs. 79,998 - 26,666 = 53,332/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 14 Rs. 53,332 x 14 = 7,46,648/- 5. Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- 8. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 9. Total Compensation awarded Rs. 1/3 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs. 79,998 - 26,666 = 53,332/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 14 Rs. 53,332 x 14 = 7,46,648/- 5. Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- 8. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 9. Total Compensation awarded Rs. 7,76,648/- Direct the respondent to pay the total amount of compensation with the liberty to recover the same from the owner of the jeep/driver /insurance company as the case may be either by taking major of the recovery proceedings or instituting a fresh case against them, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra). 20. In the result, First Appeal From Order succeeds, and is allowed. The award dated 8.8.2005 is set-aside, to the extent, indicated herein above.