JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 30.05.2019, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 3. First Appeal From Order No. 3066 of 2019, has been filed by the Shriram General Insurance Company with whom vehicle No. U.P. 79 T 3872 was insured, and, the First Appeal From Order No. 224 of 2020 has been filed by claimant-appellants and in these appeals judgment and award dated 30.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. Case No. 653 of 2017 awarding a sum of Rs. 51,15,760/- as compensation are under challenge. 4. As culled out from the record that on 29.07.2017 when deceased Vijay Kumar was returning to go to his home through highway and was arrived near Apollo Tyre Agency situated on G.T. Road, a Canter No. UP 79 T 3872 being driven rash and negligent manner, Vijay Kumar was dashed by which he received injuries and during the treatment at Siddh Vinayak Hospital, he was declared died, his age was 39 years and he was a Teacher and his salary was Rs. 40,000/- per month. The FIR was lodged by brother of deceased on 31.07.2017 and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted. The owner filed his reply and has only accepted the averments of paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the claim petition. He has denied that no accident took place by the involvement of his vehicle. His driver, namely Naushad had proper driving license and his vehicle was ensured with Sriram Insurance Company and, therefore, they were liable to pay the amount. 5. The Insurance Company filed its reply of denial. The driver did not accept the involvement of his vehicle nor he accepted that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. 6. The submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved and its driver was not negligent also is negative. 7. Parties are referred as claimants and Insurance Company for convenience. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that deceased Vijay Kumar Kushwaha was an Assistant Teacher in government school and his salary was Rs. 40,000/-per month. 7. Parties are referred as claimants and Insurance Company for convenience. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that deceased Vijay Kumar Kushwaha was an Assistant Teacher in government school and his salary was Rs. 40,000/-per month. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was 39 years. The deceased has left behind him his widow, parents and daughter. 9. Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following grounds:- (i) The vehicle cannot be said to be involved in the accident as the oral testimony of the investigator of the Insurance Company is to the effect that one of the injured has conveyed to him that the accident took place with Bus whereas, two days belated FIR mentions that the truck, which was a goods container vehicle was involved in the accident and, therefore, it can be said that the vehicle insured by the appellant was a planted vehicle. (ii) As far as the deceased is concerned, it is submitted that father is not dependent on the deceased, who was aged about 39 years and, therefore, deduction should be 1/3 towards personal expenses and not 1/4 as done by the tribunal. (iii) As far as income of the deceased is concerned, it is stated that deceased was Assistant Teacher and his income as assessed per month is just and proper. 10. The main grievance of the Company is that as far as the quantum is concerned as the widow has been given a job and the amount which is being paid to her be deducted and in alternative it is stated that non grant of future loss is just and proper as widow is granted job. 11. Taking the issue, namely issue of negligence, the driver of the truck has not stepped into the witness box. The PW-2 and PW-3 are eye witnesses as they were going on morning walk then they saw the accident happening. Nothing has been elucidated by the Insurance Company so that the fact that there is no negligence by the driver of the truck and that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The reliance placed on the judgments of Smt. Sumitra Kaur and others Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited by Regional Manage and others 2013 (1) AICC 244, Dhruvnath Tiwari and others Vs. The reliance placed on the judgments of Smt. Sumitra Kaur and others Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited by Regional Manage and others 2013 (1) AICC 244, Dhruvnath Tiwari and others Vs. Guldesh Kumar and others 2012 (1) AICC 366, N.K.V. Brothers Private Limited Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others 1980 ACJ 435 , Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan and others 1 (2011) ACC 704 AC and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kheeramani and others 2012 (2) TAC 598. All these decisions cited and evaluated by learned Tribunal will not permit us to concur with the submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved and that there was no negligent of the driver of the vehicle. Though, the FIR was against the unknown vehicle, but in the charge-sheet, the Tanker was mentioned along with its number. Charges have been levelled against the driver and he has accepted before the criminal court that his vehicle was involved in the accident and accepted his guilt and, therefore, the Tribunal has relied on decision of this High Court in case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Tedi Koti Lucknow Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others 2003 (3) TAC 61 (Allahabad), therefore, finding on issue no.1 cannot be found fault with. Hence, we hold that the driver of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, was negligent. This takes us to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment in case of 2016 (1) AICC 188 U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Rabiya Begam and another and held that as the widow has been granted what is known as compassionate appointment, they would not be entitled for any amount under the head of future loss of income. This is nothing but as misreading of judgment of Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2014 ACJ 1416 on which the learned judge has placed reliance. He has not deducted the said amount from the income of the deceased, but has felt that no future loss of income can be granted, as the widow has got appointment. This aspect has been challenged by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants. 12. The Tribunal held that “it is thus submitted that principle of balancing of loss and gains so as to arrive at a just and fair amount of compensation has been accepted by this Court as well. This aspect has been challenged by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants. 12. The Tribunal held that “it is thus submitted that principle of balancing of loss and gains so as to arrive at a just and fair amount of compensation has been accepted by this Court as well. On behalf of the Insurance Company Hodgson Vs. Trapp (1983) 3 All ER 870 has been relied on in which our attention has particularly been drawn to the following observation made at All Erp.873j-874b.” and granted multiplier of 15, which is maintained as the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 years. He had wife, daughter and mother, therefore, the deductions for personal expenses would be 1/3 and not ¼ and we are in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that the father cannot be said to be dependent and as far as deductions is concerned for personal expenses, it is different then computing the compensation. The judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) has been wrongly interpreted by the learned judge. The Tribunal has considered the income to be Rs. 38040/-per month and minus the Rs. 667/-, which was monthly tax and considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 37,376/-per month with which, we concur that out of which 1/3 is deducted. The learned judge has misread the judgments on future loss of income just because the widow has been granted compassionate appointment, that amount cannot be deducted nor can he refused what is known as future loss of income. The reliance on several judgments have been misread by the learned Tribunal. The judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has been misread as the future loss income is the income which the deceased would have earned and not that the other are given what is known as compassionate appointment. Judgment in case of Meena Devi and others Vs. Sikandar Singh and others 2006 ACJ 2140 has been wrongly interpreted. The future loss of income has to be granted and hence we recalculate the amount. In totality of the facts and circumstances, in view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Sunita and another Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another AIR 2019 SC 994 as well as Vimla Devi and others Vs. The future loss of income has to be granted and hence we recalculate the amount. In totality of the facts and circumstances, in view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Sunita and another Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another AIR 2019 SC 994 as well as Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2019) 2 SCC 186 , it cannot be held that the vehicle was not involved in the accident just because at the time when officer of the Insurance Company went to the hospital, one of the injured had conveyed that the accident had occurred with a Bus. This has to be proved to the guilt by the Insurance Company, which has not been done and, therefore, the said submission of Insurance Company is false. The submission of Insurance Company as far as deduction is concerned, is accepted and we deduct 1/3 towards personal expenses. As far as the submission of claimants is concerned, the amount, which is being paid her by the job, the same cannot be denied. The judgment in case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others AIR 2013 SC 3830 will not have to be applied in full cost as the principle of future loss of income cannot be co-related with the income, which the widow receives by doing work. It is her personal income post job, the Tribunal should not deduct any amount if spouse was a earning spouse and therefore, the findings that as the widow had been given job, no future loss of income should be granted, is fallacious finding, which requires to be upturned. We have also fortified our view in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and another decided on 02.06.2020 in F.A.F.O. No. 1022 of 1999 that strict proof of law of evidence cannot be applied to Motor Vehicle Act as it would frustrate the purpose of beneficial legislation. Insurance Company to prove breach of policy, which was not done, hence liable to pay the amount. Future loss of income can be considered in a different manner for people with job. 13. The appeal of the Insurance Company requires to be decided on the grounds raised by it. Insurance Company to prove breach of policy, which was not done, hence liable to pay the amount. Future loss of income can be considered in a different manner for people with job. 13. The appeal of the Insurance Company requires to be decided on the grounds raised by it. The first ground raised is that the oral testimony of PW-2 should not have been relied by the Tribunal, as he was not an eye witness. He was not even named in the charge-sheet. He can be said to be a got up witness. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence gathered by life line station to Police Station Baradari that injured was admitted in the hospital and the evidence of one other person named as Ritu Puri, who had conveyed orally that accident occurred with Bus and FIR being belated was lodged against driver of the Canter, which was involved in the accident. It is next submitted that the claimants failed to prove that the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company-appellant herein was involved in the accident and that the accident had taken place with the Bus and not with the Canter. As far as the compensation is concerned, it is submitted that father of the deceased was dependent on him, though he was receiving government pension. It is also submitted that the Tribunal did not follow the decision of the Apex Court in celebrated judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 and deducted what is known as ¼ for personal expenses of the deceased. The dependency unit if the father is not held to be dependent, then 1/3 should have been deducted. It is next submitted that the salary certificate should not have been accepted in evidence, as it was not a proved document. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, it is submitted that the driver of the Canter was not negligent and that the award is arbitrary, illegal and based on conjecture and surmises. It is further submitted that the duty of the owner to give intimation as per the provisions of Section 104 will absolved them from their liability. We would decide all the issues raised by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the duty of the owner to give intimation as per the provisions of Section 104 will absolved them from their liability. We would decide all the issues raised by the Insurance Company. First issue as far as the appeal by the claimants is concerned, they have felt aggrieved as the Tribunal has not considered grant of future loss of income to the appellants even though the matter was decided after the judgment in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. 14. The issue of involvement of the vehicle as well as negligence will have to be decided. The vehicle is contended not to be involved. The reason being, it is submitted that one of the witnesses had opined that accident occurred with a Bus. The judgment of Apex Court in case of Vimla Devi and Sunita Devi (supra) will not permit us to up turn the findings of the Tribunal that the vehicle was involved. The driver of the truck should have taken proper care and caution and has not entered into the witness box. 15. This takes this Court to the issue of compensation. The income of the deceased in the year of accident and looking to his profession namely that deceased was an Assistant Teacher, to which as he was below 40 years, 40% as future loss of income requires to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. 16. It has been time and again held that trappings of civil and criminal proceedings cannot be applied in a very strict manner. We have also fortified our view by the decisions in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2019 LawSuit (SC)190, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 (5) SCC 656 and Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 . The compensation is ordered to be reassessed in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the decision in F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016. On the basis of the recent judgments laying principles for ascertaining compensation. The compensation is ordered to be reassessed in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the decision in F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016. On the basis of the recent judgments laying principles for ascertaining compensation. The right to compensation would accrue on the date the accident took place. The law enunciated in Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company: 2021 (1) TAC 1 that the compensation awarded by a court ought to be just, reasonable and must undoubtedly guided by principles of fairness, equity and good conscious. In our case the Tribunals had not granted what can be said to be just compensation. 17. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below: i. Income Rs.37,376/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.18688/- iii. Total income : Rs. 37,376 + 18688 Rs. 56,064/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 rd Rs. 37376/-(rounded up) v. Annual income : Rs.37376 x 12 Rs. 4,48,512/- vi. Multiplier applicable 15 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.4,48,512 x 15 Rs.67,27,680/- viii. Amount under filial consortium and other non pecuniary heads Rs.70,000/- x. Total compensation 67,97,680/- 18. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court." 19. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 20. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007 (2) GLH 291 , the total amount of interest, accrued on the principle 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 At, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs. 50,000/-in any financial year, registry of the Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income-Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First Appeal From Order No. 2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma Vs. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.03.2021 while disbursing the amount. 21. Fresh award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunal in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma. The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate of rustic villagers. 22. The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate of rustic villagers. 22. We are thankful to Sri Ram Singh, Amit Kumar Singh and Vijay Prakash Mishra, Advocates for getting the matter decided promptly. 23. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.