JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Rajiv Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Satya Deo Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the insurance company, challenges the judgment dated 31.5.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IIIrd Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.290 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs.8,06,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation. 3. The brief facts of this case are that on 14.02.1994 one deceased (Krishna Kant Pandey) was going back from Bharthana to Auraiya by his Ambassador Car No.UHH-2100 at about 11.30 p.m. he reached near Madhupur Satiyapur where truck No.UPG-2108 was standing in the middle at the road without any lights on. As soon as Krishna Kant Pandey reached near the truck another truck came from the front with very bright lights on and his eyes got dazzled and he hit the truck no.UPG-2018 which resulted in the death of Sri Krishna Kant Pandey. 4. The submission of Sri Chaddha, learned counsel for appellant that income of deceased was considered by the tribunal without any proof and according to him the deceased as the lecturer in a Degree College his income could not be Rs.8000/- p.m. 5. It is submitted by Shri Ojha, learned counsel for respondents that cross objections are filed for enhancement of compensation and therefore the amount requires to be recalculated. 6. The issue of negligence has to be decided from the perspective of the law laid down by the Courts. 7. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which can also be accidental. More particularly, term negligence connotes reckless driving and the injured of claimants must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply. 8. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 9. 8. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under : “16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently. 18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. 18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection. 19. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 20. These provisions (sec.110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 21. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 22. By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part the other side.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is calls for enhancement. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 14.2.1994 causing death of Krishna Kant Pandey who was aged about 46 years of age and left behind him, widow and two children. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.96,000/-per annum. The deceased was lecturer by profession according to his pay certificate which is on record. To which as the deceased was in age bracket of 40 to 50 years and a salaried person, 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. To which as the deceased was in age bracket of 40 to 50 years and a salaried person, 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/3 as the deceased had three persons to feed. The multiplier of 13 would be applied and the rate of interest shall be 9% instead of 12% as granted by the court below. 12. In this backdrop let us evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation would be as follows: i. Income Rs.8,000/- per month as per pay certificate. ii. Percentage towards future prospects 30% namely Rs.2400/- iii. Total income Rs. 10,000 + 2400 = Rs.12,400/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs.8,267/- v. Multiplier applicable 13 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 46-50 years) vii. Loss of dependency Rs. 8,267 x 13 = Rs.1,07,471/- viii. Annual income Rs.1,07,471 x 12 = Rs.12,89,652/- ix. Amount under non pecuniary heads Rs.30,000/- x. Total compensation Rs.13,19,652/-. 13. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 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 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) while disbursing the amount. 15. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals 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 (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 16. 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 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." 17. The Apex Court in AIR 2021 SC 3301 , Lakkamma & others. The Regional Manager M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd & another has accepted the submission of the insurance company that for a period when the appeal is belated, interest shall not be paid. This Court will adopt the similar mode from the date of the judgment till the cross objection is filed. The delay is condoned, interest be not granted. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional 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. 19. The Appeal and the Cross objection are allowed in light of the latest decisions of the Apex Court. . 20. Record be sent back to court below forthwith, if any. 21. This Court is thankful to Shri Rajiv Chaddha and Shri S.D. Ojha, learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court.