JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for claimants. 2. Both the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 19.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 283 of 2005, awarding compensation of Rs.8,02,500/- with interest at the rate of 9%. 3. The accident took place on 13.7.2005 when the deceased along with Vinay Kumar and minor Anjali was going on the scooter, at that point of time, the truck suddenly gave the signal for turning towards right side and that is how the accident occurred in which, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and minor Anjali and Vinay Kumar also sustained injuries. The F.I.R. was lodged at the police station. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted on 14.7.2005. The deceased was a person of 39 years of age. The respondent-owner of the vehicle contended that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. The Insurance Company also file its reply which was one of denial and contended that there was breach of policy condition and that the vehicle was not involved. The Tribunal after hearing arguments and perusing the oral testimony as well as documentary evidence, returned the finding of negligence disbelieving the oral testimony of D.W.1-Driver Qudir by placing reliance on Mangal Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, 2002 (3) TAC 216 (Raj) and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,02,500/- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month, granted multiplier of 16, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and granted loss of consortium Rs. 5000/- each to claimant nos. 2 to 6 for loss of fatherly affection and Rs. 9500/- for other non pecuniary damages. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the facts go to show that the truck was involved in the accident and in the alternative, the deceased was also negligent as he was driving the vehicle having two pillion riders and, lastly, it is contended that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the facts go to show that the truck was involved in the accident and in the alternative, the deceased was also negligent as he was driving the vehicle having two pillion riders and, lastly, it is contended that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. 5. As against this the counsel for the claimants has contended that the F.I.R., Charge-sheet and testimonies of the witness conclusively prove that the vehicle was involved and the driver of the truck was the sole author of the accident and that compensation requires to be recapitulated as amount under the head of future loss of income has not been granted. 6. While dealing with submission on issue of negligence raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into. 7. 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 though it 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. 8. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is co author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place and that amount will be deducted from the compensation payable to him if he is injured and to legal representatives if he dies in the accident. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. 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. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. 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/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. 20. 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. 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/s. 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 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2001 (2) SCC 9 and Chhuttan Lal Batham vs. Shyam Lal and others, 2005 (2) T.A.C. 753 (M.P.) and Smt. Gaura Devi and others v. Shahzad Khan and others, 2013 (1) TAC 606 (ALL). 11. The finding of fact that the driver is an entrusted witness and cannot be relied on is a finding which cannot be sustained. No doubt driving with two pillion should be the reason for causing the accident. In our case, just because the deceased was driving the vehicle with two pillions was not in itself reason for the accident to take place. Rather, it was a fatal accident. The evidence of the driver of the truck goes to show that the vehicle was involved in the accident though there was a child of 13 years on the scooter, there is a collusion on the right side of the truck and, therefore, also the submission of the counsel for the appellant has to be accepted. The evidence of the driver of the truck goes to show that the vehicle was involved in the accident though there was a child of 13 years on the scooter, there is a collusion on the right side of the truck and, therefore, also the submission of the counsel for the appellant has to be accepted. The F.I.R. was given by the driver of the truck. The truck became stationery. The post-mortem nowhere mentioned that the deceased was under influence of alcohol. Hence, this Court holds that the deceased has also contributed to the accident having taken place to the tune of 25%. 12. This takes this Court now to the issue of compensation. I am unable to subscribe to the submission of Sri Rakesh Bahadur that as there was no document to prove the income, the amount of Rs.6000/- granted is on the higher side. The evidence led proves that he was a skilled tailor and, therefore, his potential to earn has also to be considered and, therefore, I maintain the income granted by the Tribunal on the basis of recent judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income. The deceased was below the age of 40 years and was having his own business, hence, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The multiplier is recalculated as the deceased was 39 years of age, hence, the multiplier would be 15. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is just and proper, hence, is not disturbed. As far as the amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages is concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/- + 10% rise in every three years in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (rounded figure) under non-pecuniary heads. 13. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below : i. Monthly Income Rs.6000 ii. Percentage towards future prospects 40% namely Rs.2400/- iii. Total income Rs.6000 + 2400 = Rs.8,400/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd Rs.5600/- v. Annual income 5600 x 12 = 67,200 vi. Multiplier applicable 15 vii. 13. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below : i. Monthly Income Rs.6000 ii. Percentage towards future prospects 40% namely Rs.2400/- iii. Total income Rs.6000 + 2400 = Rs.8,400/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd Rs.5600/- v. Annual income 5600 x 12 = 67,200 vi. Multiplier applicable 15 vii. Loss of dependency Rs.67,200 x 15 = Rs.10,08,000/- viii. Amount under non-pecuniary head 1,00,000/- ix. Total compensation 11,08,000/- x. Compensation payable to claimants after deductions of 25% negligence on the part of the deceased 11,08,000 - 2,77,000 = 8,31,000/- 14. From the record, it is seen that the appellant has been ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.8,02,500/- along with interest accrued. The Tribunal had granted interest at 9% which according to repo rate should be 7.5% as per the reasoning given below. 15. 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." 16. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The Insurance Company would recalculate the amount 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. 17. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 17. 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. 18. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri 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. 19. 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 judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 20. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.