JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded to appellant by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Ghaziabad ('Tribunal', for short), vide order dated 7.1.2016 in M.A.C.P. No.143 of 2013 (Smt.Beena Tyagi and others vs. Mohd.Azemer and others) whereby claimants/appellants was awarded Rs.6,87,000/, with 7% rate of interest as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 28/29.1.2012, the marriage ceremony of son of the deceased Sanjeev Tyagi was going on. At about 00:10 a.m., the deceased came out from mandap to see off his friends. When he was standing beside the road, a Bolero Car bearing No.UP34N/7867 came from the side of Meerut, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the deceased after coming on the wrongside in front of the gate of the mandap. In this accident, the deceased sustained serious fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital. It is also averred that the age of deceased was 43 years and he was serving in a private company in Ghaziabad. The driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance company filed their respective written statements. 3. Heard Shri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the liability on it. The issue of negligence has attained finality. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Entire factual scenario is not being narrated as the limited question in this appeal relates to the quantum only. 5. With regard to the quantum, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was in service in S.K.Garg & Co.Ltd., Ghaziabad, wherefrom he was getting salary at Rs.22,000/-per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was income-tax payee. Appellants have filed the copies of the Income-tax Returns of the deceased for three preceding years of his death, but learned Tribunal wrongly declined to believe the Income-tax Returns. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that apart from Income-tax Returns, appellants also filed a salary-certificate dated 1.2.2012 duly issued by S.K.Garg and Co.Ltd., where the deceased was employed. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that apart from Income-tax Returns, appellants also filed a salary-certificate dated 1.2.2012 duly issued by S.K.Garg and Co.Ltd., where the deceased was employed. Learned counsel also submitted that the deceased was salaried person, but learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum for future loss of income. It is next submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/for love and affection and Rs.5,000/for funeral expenses, which are on the lowerside. Regarding rate of interest, counsel for the appellants submitted that Tribunal has awarded compensation @ 7% per annum, which is on lower side. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has heavily relied on the following judgments: A. Rahul Sharma and another vs. National Insurance Company dated 7th May, 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1769 of 2021 B. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Indiro Devi and others dated 3rd July, 2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.71047105 of 2016 C. Rukmani Jethani and others vs. Gopal Singh and others dated 23rd July, 2021 in SLP (Civil) No.27802 of 2017 6. Shri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, submitted that income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.22,000/in the petition, but it could not be proved by the appellants. There is disparity between the income alleged by the appellants and income as shown in documents on record. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the income of deceased at Rs.22,000/. There is no dispute regarding 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and multiplier of 14. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and it does not call any interference by this Court. 7. Perusal of record shows that as per the averment made in the petition, the deceased was employed in the aforesaid company at Ghaziabad from where he was getting salary of Rs.22,000/per month. To show this fact, appellants have filed a salary-certificate issued by the S.K.Garg & Co.Ltd. Dated 1.2.2013 in which it is certified that the deceased was employed with this company on the post of office-coordinator during the F.Y. 2011-12 on a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/. Apart from this salary-certificate, appellants have also filed Income-tax Returns of the deceased preceding three years of his death, which are on the record. These Income-tax Returns show that income-tax was also paid by the deceased, therefore, there is no doubt that he was Income-tax payee. 8. Apart from this salary-certificate, appellants have also filed Income-tax Returns of the deceased preceding three years of his death, which are on the record. These Income-tax Returns show that income-tax was also paid by the deceased, therefore, there is no doubt that he was Income-tax payee. 8. We are not convinced with the discussion made by the learned Tribunal regarding the Income-tax Returns. Learned Tribunal did not appreciate the aforesaid documentary evidence in right perspective as it goes to show that the last return, pertaining to the A.Y. 201011, exhibits gross total income of the deceased as Rs.3,65,617/ and tax payable to it was Rs.9,451/. 9. We are of the considered opinion that learned Tribunal has committed error in discarding the documentary evidence and assessing the income as Rs.6,000/ per month only. If it would have been the fact, the deceased should have been completely exempted from payment of income-tax while he had paid income-tax nearly Rs.10,000/ per annum. 10. The Tribunal has not added any percentage of amount towards future loss of income, which is, in our opinion, grave error. Since, the deceased will fall within the category of self-employed and his age was 43 years at the time of accident, 30% shall be added towards future prospects as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. The deceased left three dependants behind him, his wife and two children. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Although, the learned Insurance Company has submitted that the deduction should have been 1/2, but we do not agree with this contention. We hold that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 43 years, therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 14 will be applied in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)], which is rightly applied by the Tribunal. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses, which are also on the lower-side. In the light of Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/for funeral expenses. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses, which are also on the lower-side. In the light of Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/for funeral expenses. Apart from it, the wife of the deceased shall also be entitled to get Rs.40,000/for loss of consortium. Hence, the non-pecuniary damages are calculated at Rs.15,000/+ Rs.15,000/+ Rs.40,000/= Rs.70,000/, and as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra), these would be revised 10% every three years. Hence, we fix total nonpecuniary damages at Rs.1,00,000/. 11. Hence, the total compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below: i. Annual Income Rs.20,000/­x 12 Rs.2,40,000/­ ii. Percentage towards Future-­Prospects (30%) Rs.72,000/­ iii. Total Income Rs.2,40,000/­+Rs.72000/­ Rs.3,12,000/­ iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs.2,08,000/­ v. Multiplier applicable 14 vi. Loss of dependency Rs.2,08,000/­x 14 Rs.29,12,000/­ vii. Non­-pecuniary Damages Rs.1,00,000/­ viii. Total Compensation Rs.29,12,000/­+Rs.1,00,000/­ Rs.30,12,000/­ 12. 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." 13. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 7% per annum, but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 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. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 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. 15. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 2007(2) GLH 291 ] and this High Court in 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 claimants 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 v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021, while disbursing the amount.