JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.K. Chatterjee and Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the respondent-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 1.8.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 624 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs.9,42,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The claimants – appellants have challenged the award of the Tribunal as far as finding of negligence and on the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The facts in brief are that Anuj Kumar, aged about 29 year, was a whole seller of textile and was maintaining his wife, son and mother with an annual income of around Rs. 3 Lacs. On 24.8.2010, Anuj Kumar along with his wife Smt. Priya, son Shreya and brother Pankaj was coming to Muzaffarnagar from Saharanpur in his Santro Car No. U.P. 12-J-7976. Anuj Kumar was carefully driving his car in slow and controlled speed at his side. At around 9.00 pm, when they turned towards Rohana after crossing Ghaloli Check Post, the driver of the truck bearing number U.P.-12-L-2062, which was moving ahead them, suddenly applied brake. Following it, Anuj Kumar too applied brake keeping his car at necessary and appropriate distance and stopped the car. The drivers of other vehicles following the car also stopped their vehicles. But the driver of the truck U.P.-12-L-2062 suddenly, speedily and carelessly drove back his vehicle without using dipper and horn. Seeing it, Anuj blew horn of his car and tried to check his car but he could not reverse his car due to there being other vehicles behind the aforesaid car and the driver of the truck reversing the truck speedily and carelessly hit the vehicle Santro Car U.P.-12-J-7976 forcefully and rampaged the truck over the car as a result of which Anuj Kumar, his brother Pankaj and Priya sustained severe injuries. They were taken to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, Anuj Kumar had been declared dead in the district hospital. They were taken to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, Anuj Kumar had been declared dead in the district hospital. In the accident, there was no mistake or carelessness on the part of Anuj Kumar rather the carelessness was on the part of the truck driver regarding which the report was lodged against the truck driver with Crime no. 1519/2010 u/Ss 279, 337, 338, 304-A of I.P.C. at police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. 5. As far as issue of contributory negligence is concerned as alleged by the appellant, we will have to consider the principles for deciding the negligence. 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. 6. 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. 7. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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 ACJ (SC) 1840). 11. 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 of driver of another vehicle. 12. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal holding driver of the truck 30% negligent relying on the decisions in Mananing Director, BMTC Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (3) TAC 796 (SC), Indira Devi and others Vs. Bagada Ram and others, (2011) 2 SCC 134, United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. T. Gandama and others, 2010 (2) TAC 345, Andhra Pradesh, is bad for the reasons assigned herein below. 13. While going through the record, it transpires that the accident took place between the truck and car. They both were on the middle road. The truck, according to the witnesses, was on the side of the road. The accident occurred at 09:00 p.m. in the night. It is nobody’s case that the driver of the truck had tried to safeguard by keeping any indicator on would show that the vehicle was stationed with all safety. The learned Tribunal also comes to the conclusion that the truck was stationary without any indicator and, therefore, we hold that contours of the judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Director, BMTC Vs. The learned Tribunal also comes to the conclusion that the truck was stationary without any indicator and, therefore, we hold that contours of the judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Director, BMTC Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (3) TAC 796, cannot apply in our case as it was night time. The truck driver did not even step into the witness box. The judgment in the case of Indira Devi and others Vs. Bagada Ram and another, (2011) 2 SCC 134, cannot be made applicable on the facts of this case. In our case, the vehicle was parked without any parking light and as it was night time and, therefore, also we are unable to accept the submission of the Counsel for the respondents that the driver of the Car was not negligent. Stationary truck was parked on the road, therefore, the judgement of the Apex Court in Smt. K. Anusha and others Vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company, 2022 (4) TAC 341, will apply to the facts of this case. Had the truck not being parked on the Highway with no parking light, the accident might have not occurred but the frugality with the accident occurred goes to show that the driver of the Car is also negligent. 14. We are interfering in the finding as far as contributory negligence is concerned as we are unable to accept the submission of Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava that the driver of the Car dashed with the truck and was fully negligent. The driver of the truck has not entered into the witness box that goes against the truck and Insurance company. We hold the driver of the Car 30% negligent. 15. The challenge to the Tribunal award is that the Tribunal has not granted future loss of income as the accident occurred in 2010. The deceased had a business and, therefore, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court on Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . There is no dispute as far as computation of compensation is concerned. The income, which has been considered by the Tribunal, is not disturbed. 16. The deceased had a business and, therefore, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court on Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . There is no dispute as far as computation of compensation is concerned. The income, which has been considered by the Tribunal, is not disturbed. 16. As the deceased was below 40 years namely 29 years and was having his own business, 40% should be added as future loss of income of the deceased in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105. The deceased was 29 years of age hence multiplier of 17 would apply. It is further submitted that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs.70,000 plus 10% rise in every 3 years in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, we grant Rs.1,00,000/-(rounded figure) under the head of non-pecuniary damages. 17. Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below : i. Annual Income Rs.1,74,000/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects 40% namely Rs.69,600/- iii. Total income Rs.1,74,000+69,600=Rs.2,43,600/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs.1,62,400/- v. Multiplier applicable 17 vi. Loss of dependency Rs.1,62,400x17=Rs.27,60,800/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads Rs.1,00,000/- viii. Total compensation Rs.28,60,800/- ix. Amount payable to claimants after deduction of 30% negligence of deceased Rs.20,02,560/- 18. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the interest 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. 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. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 20. 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. 21. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri 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. 22. 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 with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 23. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. 24. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 23. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. 24. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.