JUDGMENT : Ajai Tyagi, J. 1. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Ghaziabad/ Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005 awarding compensation of Rs.4,10,924/- alongwith 6% interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that injured (later on deceased) Pradeep Kumar Bisla filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005 before the Tribunal at Ghaziabad for sustaining injuries in road accident. The injured petitioner Pradeep Kumar Bisla died during the pendency of the claim petition. 3. As per averments in claim petition, the deceased was going to J.P. Nagar from Moradabad on 05.11.2004 at about 07:45 a.m. when he reached at village Nepaniya, a truck bearing no. DL 1GB 2087 came from opposite direction, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the car No. DL 3 CZ 5378, in which the deceased was travelling. In this accident the deceased sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in Primary Health Centre Rajabpur from where he was carried to the hospital in Meerut where he was treated for a long time. On 28.01.2006, the injured died during the treatment. 4. Learned Tribunal found that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of driver of the truck and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased but learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages. Tribunal denied from awarding any compensation for death of the deceased holding that it could not be proved by the appellants/claimants that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident. 5. Heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. The Insurance Company did not challenge the liability to pay the compensation and no cross appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. The accident is also not in dispute. The major issue in this appeal to be decided is whether appellants are entitled to compensation for death of the deceased also alongwith medical expenses etc. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the accident in question, the deceased sustained serious injuries. The accident is also not in dispute. The major issue in this appeal to be decided is whether appellants are entitled to compensation for death of the deceased also alongwith medical expenses etc. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the accident in question, the deceased sustained serious injuries. Just after the accident he was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Rajabpur and from there he was shifted to Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut for better treatment. It is also submitted that the medical papers of the deceased go to show that the deceased sustained several serious injuries and he remained hospitalized for a long time and ultimately he died on 28.01.2006 which was the result of the severe injuries sustained in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that entire medical record was available before the Tribunal but Tribunal did not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Copy of post-mortem report is also on record and the employee of Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut was also examined. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that appellants failed to prove that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident, hence, the learned Tribunal has denied compensation for death of the deceased. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-which is a very meager amount for special diet and Rs.5,000/-for pain, shock and suffering. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded loss of income only to the extent of two months salary of the deceased, keeping in view of the fact that he remained hospitalized only for two months. Learned counsel next submitted that the deceased was a Government Employee in the Government of Punjab and he was getting salary near about Rs.30,000 per month. Future loss of income of the deceased is also not considered by the Tribunal. 10. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation with regard to the medical bills, loss of salary for two months and very meager amount for pain and sufferings and special diet and no compensation was granted with regard to death of the deceased holding that the death was not the result of injuries sustained in the accident. 11. 10. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation with regard to the medical bills, loss of salary for two months and very meager amount for pain and sufferings and special diet and no compensation was granted with regard to death of the deceased holding that the death was not the result of injuries sustained in the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant made submission that the wife of the deceased has deposed before learned Tribunal that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident but her testimony is not relied by the Tribunal which is wrong appreciation of evidence. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that it was not proved that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in accident. In this regard a copy of the post-mortem report is submitted on record by the appellants but this report is not at all readable. Learned Tribunal had given opportunity to appellants to file a legible copy but they failed to do so, hence, ante-mortem injuries and cause of death could not be known by the copy of post mortem injuries on record, in absence of which it could not be proved that the death occurred due to those injuries which were sustained in a road accident. 12. In motor accident claim petition the standard of prove is not as strict as in civil or criminal cases. In the case of Anita Sharma & others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2021) 1 SCC 171 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “18. Unfortunately, the approach of the High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the appellant claimants’ hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometers away in an altogether different State. Close to the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, viewed that: “12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Close to the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, viewed that: “12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitised enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. xxx 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”(emphasis supplied) 13. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subbulakshmi and others passed in C.M.A. No.1482 of 2017 decided on 27.04.2017 has held that strict prove of an accident in particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants but claimants have to establish their cases on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of prove beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. 14. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident in question had taken place due to sole negligence of the truck driver and the deceased was not negligent but we are not convinced with the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to the copy of the post-mortem report that it is not at all legible. 14. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident in question had taken place due to sole negligence of the truck driver and the deceased was not negligent but we are not convinced with the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to the copy of the post-mortem report that it is not at all legible. We have gone through the record and found that although the copy of post-mortem is not clear yet the cause of death is readable which is chronic diabetes, hence we are convinced that the deceased did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the accident which had taken place before 15 months of his death. Hence, we are convinced that the appellants have failed to link the death of the deceased with the injuries sustained in accident. 15. Now it comes another situation which is more relevant in this particular case. The question arises whether the claim petition or its appeal, as the case may be, shall continue after death of the injured claimant. The answer is in affirmative. If injured-claimant dies during the pendency of the claim petition or appeal and his/her death is not the result of injuries in the accident, even though the petition or appeal shall not abate and it shall continue by legal representatives but only with regard to the compensation for loss of estate of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court has recently in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another reported in LL 2021 SC 382, has held as under:- “9. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1)(a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured. What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has to engage our attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries. 10. In Umed Chand (supra), giving a broad liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Act so that legal representatives do not suffer injustice, it was observed that the claim for personal injuries will not survive on death of the injured unrelated to the accident but the legal representatives could pursue the claim for enhancement of the claim for loss of the estate which would include expenditure on medical expenses, travelling, attendant, diet, doctor’s fee and reasonable monthly annual accretion to the estate for a certain period. It is trite that the income which a person derives compositely forms part of the expenditure on himself, his family and the savings go to the estate. The unforeseen expenses as aforesaid naturally have to be met from the estate causing pecuniary loss to the estate.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has further held as follows:- “14. It is trite that the income which a person derives compositely forms part of the expenditure on himself, his family and the savings go to the estate. The unforeseen expenses as aforesaid naturally have to be met from the estate causing pecuniary loss to the estate.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has further held as follows:- “14. This view has subsequently been followed in a decision authored by brother Justice M.R. Shah J., (as he then was) in Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs. Joseph Francis Mewan and Others, 2015 (2) GLH 499 , holding as follows: “12….Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil (supra); decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jenabai Widow of Abdul Karim Musa (supra) and in the case of Amrishkumar Vinodbhai (supra); and aforesaid two decisions of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, we are of the opinion that maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” on which Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right to sue survive to his heirs and legal representatives in so far as loss to the estate is concerned, which would include personal expenses incurred on the treatment and other claim related to loss to the estate. Under the circumstances, the issue referred to the Division Bench is answered accordingly. Consequently, it is held that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in permitting the heirs to be brought on record of the claim petition and permitting the heirs of the injured claimant who died subsequently to proceed further with the claim petition. However, the claim petition and even appeal for enhancement would be confine to the claim for the loss to the estate as observed hereinabove.” 15. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joti Ram vs. Chamanlal, AIR 1985 P&H 2 and the Madras High Court in Thailammai vs. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185 (Mad). 16. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joti Ram vs. Chamanlal, AIR 1985 P&H 2 and the Madras High Court in Thailammai vs. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185 (Mad). 16. The view taken in Kanamma (supra) and Uttam Kumar (supra) that the claim would abate is based on a narrow interpretation of the Act which does not commend to us. The reasoning of the Gujarat High Court is more in consonance with aim, purpose and spirit of the Act and furthers its real intent and purpose which we therefore approve.” 16. In the aforesaid case, lastly the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified what to be calculated in loss of estate, which is as follows:- “20. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased. 21. However, the compensation under the head pain and suffering being personal injuries is held to be unsustainable and is disallowed.” 17. Hence, in such type of case, as in our hand the settled law is that while the claim for personal injury may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused, was available to and could be persuade by the legal representative of the deceased in the appeal. 18. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants shall be entitled only with regard to the compensation for loss of estate of the deceased. The impugned judgment goes to show that the appellants were awarded Rs.3,46,270/-for medical bills but the learned Tribunal has denied the medical bills for Rs.1,42,500/-which pertains to Yog Dispensary. In this regard, it is concluded by the Tribunal that it is not mentioned in claim petition that deceased was ever admitted to Yog Dispensary and the name of the doctor Amit Talyan is also not mentioned in claim petition in the panel of doctors who treated the injured/deceased. On this basis, the Tribunal has denied the medical bills pertaining to Yog Dispensary. On this basis, the Tribunal has denied the medical bills pertaining to Yog Dispensary. We have gone through the records and found that the bills pertaining to Yog Dispensary are prepared on the printed bill book having serial numbers and each bill has name of the patient and name of the concerned doctor, hence, these bills could not be thrown away in such a causal manner. Learned Tribunal did so. It is pertinent to mention that the Insurance Company never prayed to the Tribunal to summon the owner/proprietor of dispensary to summon as a witness. If these bills were fake, it was the burden on the shoulders of the Insurance Company to get the proprietary of Yog Dispensary summoned or he could be summoned by the Tribunal as a Court witness and could have been put to cross examination but no such exercise is done either by Insurance Company or Tribunal itself. Hence, the Tribunal has fallen in error in brushing aside the medical bills of Yog Dispensary worth Rs.1,42,500/-, hence, we hold that the appellants shall also be entitled to get Rs.1,42,500/-for medical expenses which come under the head of loss of a estate as per the judgment in the case of Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (supra). The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/-for special diet which we enhance to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under non-pecuniary heads except for special diet. The family members would have cared of the deceased for 15 months and for attending charges, we award lump sum Rs.1/- lac to the family members. 19. However, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering being personal injuries is held to be unsustainable and is disallowed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (supra), hence, the appellant shall not be entitled to the compensation under the head of pain and suffering i.e. Rs.5,000/-. The decision in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (supra) would be applicable but in our case the situation is that the deceased suffered for 15 months consistently, subjected to hospitalization in several hospitals which would have caused the trauma to the family members. Once, we hold that the driver of the truck was liable for the tortious act, the amount for agony and anguish will have to be awarded, we award lump sum of Rs.1/-lac under the non-pecuniary heads. Once, we hold that the driver of the truck was liable for the tortious act, the amount for agony and anguish will have to be awarded, we award lump sum of Rs.1/-lac under the non-pecuniary heads. 20. It is as per the reasoning given herein above unfortunately the claimants did not file any disability certificate of the deceased which he would have incurred during the period of his ailment. The medical certificate which we have perused, go to show that there were three injuries and fracture which would bring about some kind of permanent disability, when he was a government employee, and therefore, over and above, the loss of income for two months a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-under the loss to the estate even under principle of injuries resulting into ailment, is granted. 21. On the basis of the above discussion, we recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants as under:- (i). Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.4,10,924/- (ii). Deduction of amount under the head of pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-, (iii). Remaining amount Rs.4,05,924/- (iv). Enhanced amount for special diet Rs.20,000/-, (v). Medical bills of Yog Dispensary(etc) Rs.1,42,500/- (vi). Attending charges Rs.1,00,000/- (vii). Amount under non-pecuniary head Rs.1,00,000/- (viii). Loss of estate Rs.50,000/- (ix). Total amount of compensation payable Rs.4,05,924+1,42,500+20,000+1,00,000+1,00,000+50,000/- Rs.8,18,424/-. (Round Figure Rs.8,18,000/-). 22. 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." 23. 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. 24. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 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. 24. 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 respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. (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. 25. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 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. 26. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, vide order dated 27.01.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. Since long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Bank Account of claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without F.D.R.