JUDGMENT : Ajai Tyagi, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.4.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 218 of 2009 (Smt. Satwinder Gill and others v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), whereby the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and awarded a sum of Rs. 16,69,059/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Learned Tribunal also held contributory negligence to the tune of 50% each of the drivers, involved in the accident. 2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and setting aside the part of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased/driver of the car. 3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Dr. Narendra Singh in a road accident with the averments that on 18.1.2008 deceased was going with his friend by car bearing registration No. H.P. 31A 1723 from his house, situated in Delhi, to Koal Diem Hydro Power Project, Sundar Nagar, District Mandi (Himanchal Pradesh). Between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. when he was going on Kallar Uphill, Jhuggi Moad, a truck bearing No. H.P. 11 A 7045, which was coming down-hill and was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the car of the deceased. 4. In this accident, Dr. Narendra Singh (deceased) and his friend were badly injured and Dr. Narendra Singh (deceased) died in P.G.I., Chandigarh due to fatal injuries. 5. The owner/driver of the offending truck and owner of the car filed their written statements and insurance companies of both the vehicles also filed their respective written statements. Learned Tribunal held that both the drivers of the vehicles involved in accident were negligent to the tune of 50% each. 6. Heard Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Perused the record. 7. 6. Heard Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that learned Tribunal has given wrong finding regarding the plea of contributory negligence because the deceased was not at all negligent in driving the car. It is also submitted that at the place of accident, the car was going uphill and the truck was coming down-hill. As per the Traffic Rules and Regulations of driving in hill areas, the driver of the vehicle has to give precedence to a vehicle, which is going uphill but in this case, the truck driver was coming down-hill and driving very fast. This fact is proved by the fact that it has come in evidence that there were tire marks of the truck nearly in the distance of 25 feet. It shows that driver of the truck was driving at a very high speed and did not give passage to the car of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has also submitted that accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of truck driver. With regard to the compensation, learned counsel has submitted that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for future loss of income of the deceased while the income tax return of the deceased show that income of the deceased was increasing every year. It is next submitted that there were five dependents on the deceased, hence, learned Tribunal should have deducted ¼ for personal expenses of the deceased while it has deducted 1/3 of the income, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. 9. Further submission is that learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate, which are on the very lower side and moreover, no amount has been granted for loss of consortium. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently objected the arguments advanced by the claimants and submitted that accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the deceased because he was driving the car at a very high speed and truck driver did his best to avoid the accident. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently objected the arguments advanced by the claimants and submitted that accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the deceased because he was driving the car at a very high speed and truck driver did his best to avoid the accident. It is also submitted that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is already fixed on the higher side, which needs no interference by this Court. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment and award shows that learned Tribunal has held both the drivers guilty to the tune of 50% each. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma and others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 704, held that learned Tribunal is not required to adopt the standard of proof as is adopted in criminal trials. Learned Tribunal is required to decide the claim petitions on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such matters, learned Tribunal should take holistic view of the matter on the basis of evidence available on record. 13. Now, we come to the controversy of negligence in the matter. Let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down. 14. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured 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. 15. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 16. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Renu Singh and others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under : ''16. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 16. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. 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. 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. 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. 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 (Section 110-A and Section 110-B 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. 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.'' (Emphasis added) 17. The factual scenario goes to show that appellants-claimants have produced P.W.-2 as eye-witness of the accident. Perusal of record and evidence make it clear that there is no dispute to the fact that at the place of accident, car of the deceased was going uphill and the truck was coming downhill, hence, it was the duty of the truck driver to give precedence to the car because it was going uphill. The tire marks of the truck on the road within the distance of 25 feet also go to show that at the time of accident, the truck was being driven at a very high speed. 18. It is very pertinent to mention that the truck driver did not step into the witness-box. Keeping in view the above circumstances and evidence on record, we are not convinced with the finding of learned Tribunal to hold the deceased guilty to the tune of 50%. 18. It is very pertinent to mention that the truck driver did not step into the witness-box. Keeping in view the above circumstances and evidence on record, we are not convinced with the finding of learned Tribunal to hold the deceased guilty to the tune of 50%. In our opinion, learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective, hence, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, we hold the truck driver's negligence to the tune of 80% and the deceased's negligence to the extent of 20%. 19. Now, we come to the quantum of compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a doctor. Appellants have filed three years income tax return preceding to the year of the death of the deceased. The income tax return for the financial year 2007-08 is relevant, which is considered by the learned Tribunal also. It shows the income of the deceased Rs. 3,57,655, this income is taken as actual income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal but learned Tribunal has lost sight from the fact that income tax would be deducted from the income to arrive at actual income. The aforesaid income tax return shows that deceased had paid income tax as Rs. 27,826/-, hence, the actual income of the deceased would be Rs. 3,57,655/- - Rs. 27,826/- = Rs. 3,29,829/-. 20. According to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093, due to being self employed and being of 41 years of age, 30% shall be added towards future loss of income of the deceased as per the aforesaid decisions. 21. As far as the dependency is concerned, there are five dependents of the deceased. Keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted for personal expenses. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14 for which there is no dispute. Under the non pecuniary head, claimants-appellants shall be entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. Apart from it, the wife, father and mother of the deceased shall be entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. The children of the deceased shall also be entitled to get Rs. Under the non pecuniary head, claimants-appellants shall be entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. Apart from it, the wife, father and mother of the deceased shall be entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. The children of the deceased shall also be entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- jointly for loss of filial consortium in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC (SC), under the head of non pecuniary damages as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 22. Hence, the total compensation payable to the claimants appellants are computed herein below: (i) Annual income Rs. 3,29,829/- Per annum. (ii) Percentage towards future prospects : 30%. Rs. 98,948/- (iii) Total income : Rs. 3,29,829 + Rs. 98,948/- = Rs. 4,28,777/- (iv) Income after deduction of 1/4th:Rs.4,28,777-1,07,194/-= Rs. 3,21,586/- (v) Multiplier applicable : 14 (vi) Loss of dependency : Rs. 3,21,586 X 14 = Rs. 45,02,204/- (vii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs. 30,000/- (viii) filial consortium : Rs. 1,60,000/- (ix) Total compensation: Rs. 45,02,204/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 1,60,000/- = Rs. 46,92,204/- (ix) Amount after 20% deduction towards contributory negligence : Rs. 46,92,204/- - Rs. 9,38,440/- = Rs. 37,53,764/- 23. 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. v. Mannat Johal and others, 2019 (2) TAC 705 (SC), 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.'' 24. 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.'' 24. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 6% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment. 25. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the claimants bearing F.A.F.O. 1164 of 2015 is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the learned 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. 26. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v. 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 under Section 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 v. 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.