JUDGMENT : Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the appellant insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.969/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mandya, on the ground that the compensation granted is on the higher side and prays for reduction of the compensation. 3. The main grounds of the appeal is that the tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the claimant respondent No.1 at Rs.8,000/-per month, since the accident was occurred in the year 2012. The other contention raised by the appellant’s counsel is that the tribunal has erred in adding 50% to the income of the claimant while calculating the loss of future income and the same is erroneous which requires modification. The tribunal has also erred in awarding the interest @ 9% per annum which is uncalled for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant’s counsel prays for modification of the impugned judgment and award by reducing the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 4. The counsel appearing for the claimant respondent No.1 has fairly conceded that the tribunal has erred in adding 50% to the income of the claimant while calculating loss of future income. However, he contended that the tribunal has taken income at Rs.8,000/- per month which is just and reasonable and the claimant was an agriculturist and apart from that he was also doing milk vending business and in respect of his contention, he also examined PW.3-employer of the claimant and proved his income. Hence, the tribunal has not committed any error in taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per month. 5. Having heard the arguments of both the counsel for appellant insurer and claimant respondent No.1 and on perusal of the judgment and award of the tribunal, it is seen that while calculating compensation towards loss of future income, the tribunal has taken income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-per month as notional income by considering the age of the claimant and also prevailing social conditions i.e., cost of living as on date of the accident. But failed to take note of the fact that the accident was occurred in the year 2012 and it appears that the tribunal has taken higher income and it is appropriate to take income as Rs.7,000/-per month, by taking note of the year of the accident. The tribunal also in paragraph No.26 of the judgment has added 50% to the monthly income of the petitioner and the same has been added while calculating the loss of future income and the doctor who has been examined before the tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body. Under such circumstances, the tribunal has erred in adding 50% and the same is require to be modified. 6. Now coming to the compensation awarded under different heads by the tribunal is concerned, it has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards pain and suffering, the same is just and reasonable, regarding medical expenses an amount of Rs.2,01,255-/was awarded based on the medical bills and the same does not require interference. Under the head conveyance, nursing, nourishment and other incidental expenses a sum of Rs.10,500/-was awarded. The counsel appearing for the claimant has brought to my notice that he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days and the same has been discussed in paragraph No.22 of the impugned judgment and award and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,500/-only under the said head. The same appears to be little lower side and hence a sum of Rs.20,000/-is awarded as against Rs.10,500/-. The doctor has opined that the implants are to be removed and same may require a sum of Rs.40,000/-and by taking note of the same, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards future medical expenses and the same is just and proper. The tribunal while calculating loss of income during laid up period has considered only two months and it is important to note that he was an inpatient for a period of 21 days, he was subjected to surgery and the fractures are not united and same may require two to four months for union of fractures. Hence, it is just and reasonable to take four months. Therefore, the same is modified to Rs.28,000/-by taking the income as Rs.7,000/-per month as against Rs.16,000/-awarded by the tribunal. 7. Now with regard to awarding of compensation towards loss of future income is concerned, the tribunal has taken Rs.8,000/-per month. Hence, it is just and reasonable to take four months. Therefore, the same is modified to Rs.28,000/-by taking the income as Rs.7,000/-per month as against Rs.16,000/-awarded by the tribunal. 7. Now with regard to awarding of compensation towards loss of future income is concerned, the tribunal has taken Rs.8,000/-per month. Considering the year of the accident, this Court assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/-per month and 50% added to the income by the tribunal is deducted. Therefore, taking the income at Rs.7,000/-x 12 x 17 with 10% disability, the loss of future income works out to Rs.1,42,800/-as against Rs.2,44,800/-. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-on the head of loss of marriage prospects and the injured was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident and he has suffered disability of 10% and the amount of 50,000/-awarded is on the higher side and only he has suffered 10% disability. In the circumstances, a sum Rs.30,000/-is awarded instead of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the tribunal. A sum of Rs.35,000/-was awarded towards inconvenience, discomfort and loss of future amenities, the same is to be retained and no ground to interfere with the same. 8. The counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the interest awarded at 9% is on the higher side. In view of the Section 149(1) of MV Act, it should not be more than 6%. The counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in MFA No.5956/2017 connected with MFA No.6810/2017. This Court on the earlier occasion had reduced the interest @ 8% to 6% by relying upon Section 149(1) r/w 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said contention of the appellant counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons that the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments has held that the tribunal while awarding interest has to take note of the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized banks and based on the same, interest is to be awarded and this matter is disposed of in the year 2016 and hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant’s counsel and the interest @ 9% per annum is retained. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified and a sum of Rs.5,27,055/-with interest @9% per annum is awarded as against Rs.6,27,555/-awarded by the tribunal. (ii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the tribunal for payment within a period of two weeks from today.