JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 7.12.2015 deceased, namely, Virendra Kumar Pal along with one Mayaram, the brother-in-law of his elder brother, riding on motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP-78BW-6535 was going to Village Tikrauli, District Hamirpur. Mayaram was driving the motorcycle with normal speed on his side. As soon as 7.10 am they reached at Village Amauli, Police Station Sajeti on Kanpur-Hamirpur road, the driver of Truck No. UP-78CN-5788, driving rashly and negligently dashed motorcycle on account of which both succumbed to their injuries on the spot. Claimants filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 48,27,906/- as compensation. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 194 of 2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 19,29,687/- with 7% annual interest. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only contention raised in this petition is that deceased was 52 years and 11 months and the multiplier of 5 applied by the Tribunal is on lower side on the basis that the deceased had only five years service left and hence the multiplier would be 5. 5. I have perused the Judgment and order impugned. 6. Even if we consider the age of the deceased to be above 50 years, he comes under the age bracket of 51-55. As per the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050, multiplier would be 11. Thus, the reasoning given in paragraph 31 for applying multiplier of 5 is against the mandate of Supreme Court and Judgment of Madras High court rendered in Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Arulmozhi, (2014) AAC 1046. It has not to be seen as far as the claim petition is concerned, hence, this mistake is apparent on the face of the record. The multiplier applicable in the present case would be. Ltd. vs. M. Arulmozhi, (2014) AAC 1046. It has not to be seen as far as the claim petition is concerned, hence, this mistake is apparent on the face of the record. The multiplier applicable in the present case would be. As far as deduction of 1/3 is concerned, I am in agreement that it has been properly deducted. As far as the rest of the awarded decree is concerned, the amount granted to widow, who was 40 years of age, and accident took place on 2003, 10% has to be added. Therefore, Rs. 5000/- is to be added to the amount under non pecuniary loss as per decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). The interest as per Judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) TAC 705 (SC) would be 7.5 per cent but Insurance Company shall not deduct any amount under the TDS as the cannot be deducted as per the Judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 23 of 2001, Smt. Sudesna and Others vs. Hari Singh and Another, dated 26.11.2020. Relevant part of the said Judgment is as under:- “It is further orally conveyed that even if the amounts will be deposited, the Insurance company normally deducts TDS. The judgment is reviewed and at the end: (i) On depositing the amount in the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. (ii) Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma vs. Venugopal, 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither not illiterate and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and Others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.). (iii) View of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2007 (2) GLH 291 , total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/- insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of ‘Tax Deducted at Source’ as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount (as directed in Para No. II) without producing the certificate from the concerned Income-Tax Authority.” 7. The amount shall be deposited on or before 31.1.2021. 8. It goes without saying that if the amount is deposited and TDS is deducted, the Insurance company shall see to it that in future this mistake is not committed and will help the appellant in recovering the said amount from the income-tax department. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. 10. This Court is thankful to Sri. Arvind Kumar for ably assisting the court so that Insurance Company may not have to pay more interest.