JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 20.10.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 322 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation. 3. The accident and involvement of vehicle are not in dispute. The accidental injuries caused death is also not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The issues to be decided are negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The judgment is therefore not stuffed with narration of all facts except for deciding negligence and compensation. 4. We are unable to subscribe to the submission of Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants that the deceased has not contributed to the accident on our reasonings given later on. 5. In view of the submission made by both the counsels as far as negligence is concerned this Court will have to decide the issue of negligence. It would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding negligence and to decide whether it is a case of composite/contributory negligence which will also have to be looked into and the principles enunciated for considering the same in a motor accident claim will be sifted and discussed finding on negligence. 6. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care 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. 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 and likely to cause 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. 7. 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 it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was either or going ahead crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently and the driver can be held to be the author of the unforseen incident. 8. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 contains 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 must 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 tries to overtake of the vehicle on road, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the vehicle in or over which deceased was riding, was being played. 9. 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 tries to overtake of the vehicle on road, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the vehicle in or over which deceased was riding, was being played. 9. 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 vs. 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. 10. In the light of the above discussion, 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 (refer Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 0 ACJ (SC) 1840). 11. The negligent act must contribute to the accident having taken place. The Apex Court recently has considered the principles of negligence in case of Archit Saini and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 1143 . 12. The burden of proof would ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle driven by the driver was being driven with reasonable care or it is proved that there is equal negligence on the part the other side in causing the accident. 13. The driver of both the vehicles have been held to be negligent by the tribunal and the tribunal has held that both drivers have equally contributed to the accident having taken place. The fact that the truck hit the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling from behind, is an admitted position of fact that the truck hit the motorcyclist from behind. 14. The fact that the truck hit the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling from behind, is an admitted position of fact that the truck hit the motorcyclist from behind. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 16 of 2001 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Gorakhpur vs. Smt. Neera Singh and Others. 15. The reasonings given for holding the driver of the motorcycle 50% negligence, when a driver driving bigger vehicle has to be more cautious. The driver of the truck even events of the site plan that the truck driver tried to take a turn, the motorcyclist also tried to take turn that is how the truck driver dashed with the motorcyclist. It is an admitted position of fact that the truck driver dashed the motorcycle from behind even as per the site plan, the documentary evidence goes to show that the accident occurred and died at 7 p.m. We, therefore, held the driver of the truck to be 80% negligent, the reason being he is not stepped into the witness box. The vehicle while taking a turn whether the indicators were on the evidence is to the contrary as given by the witnesses for the claimants. However, considering the facts that accident occurred in the cross turning whether held the deceased 20% negligence. Compensation 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants submitted that deceased was Labour Supply Contractor by profession and was earning Rs. 9000/- per month. It is also submitted by learned counsel for appellants that as the deceased was survived by his wife and major son and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/3 is not disputed by appellants. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased and tribunal has granted multiplier of 11 which is not disputed by either side. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased and tribunal has granted multiplier of 11 which is not disputed by either side. The tribunal has not assessed the future prospects loss of income, it is submitted that should be 25% instead of 20% as per decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) and U.P. M.V. Rules, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court titled United India, Insurance Co. Ltd. Gorakhpur vs. Smt. Neeraj Singh and Others, 2017 (1) AWC 636 . 17. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are unsubstantiated, learned counsel has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. It is further submitted that the accident and decision of tribunal is based on the decision of Sarla Verma (Supra) where it is held further loss of income can't be granted to a person who is self employed. The deduction is just and proper as deceased is considered to have equally contributed in causing the accident. 18. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 11.4.2011 causing death of Prabhu Nath Singh who was 50 years of age and left behind him, wife and a major son. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 9000/- per month. The deceased was Labour Supply Contractor by profession. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of Saead Bashir Ahmad vs. Md. Zamil, 2009 (1) TAC 794 and decided that the deceased was earning Rs. 9000/- p.m. The evidence of the witnesses has not been accepted. The Apex Court in Vimla Devi and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 , has held strict rules of Civil Procedure may not be applied. The deceased died due to the accidental injuries is not in dispute. The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 , would also apply to the facts of this case. 19. As far as beneficial piece of legislation is concerned, the strict rules of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are no required to adhered to. 20. The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 , would also apply to the facts of this case. 19. As far as beneficial piece of legislation is concerned, the strict rules of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are no required to adhered to. 20. In view of the judgment of Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 , except income Tax, if payable, no amount could have been deducted by the tribunal in the year of question, i.e. 2011, the income of deceased was below taxable income. The income of Rs. 9000/- per month of the deceased as considered by tribunal is maintained. The deceased was in age bracket of 40-50 years as Labour supply contractor in light of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 25% 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. 21. In this backdrop we evaluate the compensation 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 of compensation would be as follows: i. Income Rs. 9000/- p.m. ii. Percentage towards future prospects 25% namely Rs. 2250/- iii. Total income Rs. 9000 + 2250 = Rs. 11,250/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs. 7500/- v. Annual income Rs. 7500 x 12 = Rs. 90,000/- vi. Multiplier applicable 11 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 51-55 years) vii. Loss of dependency Rs. 90000 x 11 = Rs. 9,90,000/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads (Rs. 70,000 + 30,000) Rs. 1,00,000/- ix. Total compensation Rs. 10,90,000/- x. Amount admissible to the Claimants after deduction of negligence to the tune of 20% on the part of the deceased Rs. 8,72,000/- 22. 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 vs. Venugopal, 2012 (1) GLH 6 (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 23. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma vs. Venugopal, 2012 (1) GLH 6 (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 23. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 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 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 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. 24. 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. 25. 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) 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 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.'' 26. 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 alongwith 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. 27. We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court. 28. Record be sent back to Court below forthwith, if any.