JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 20.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.61 of 2015 awarding a sum of Rs.24,74,984/-with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation As the appeal can be decided on settled legal position for calculation and hence record and paper book by consent of all we dispensed, so that both competing parties can be benefited for the insurance company can save huge interest. 3. The accident and involvement of vehicle is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, the quantum of compensation awarded. The age of the deceased as decided by Tribunal has attained finality. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was in self business having his business in the name of s M/s Tulsi Industries. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.2,89,850/-per annum, is also not in dispute. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should 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 the amount granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and it should be as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Unfortunate aspect is that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of future loss of income and granted only Rs.15,000/-for non pecuniary damages and deducted 25% holding deceased guilty of contributory negligence. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference as the date of accident is 16.12.2014 and the decision of the Tribunal is prior to the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference as the date of accident is 16.12.2014 and the decision of the Tribunal is prior to the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the future loss of income and the amount for non pecuniary damages granted are as per U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules, 1998"). 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 16.12.2014 causing death of Ashutosh Gupta who was 32 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.2,89,850/-per year which according to this Court is just and proper, looking to his vocation. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31, 35, 40% of the income will have to be added as future loss of income, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The deduction of 1/3rd granted by the Tribunal is just and proper as the dependents on deceased were widow, mother and a six year old minor daughter. The multiplier of 17 granted by the Tribunal would be recalculated as 16 as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The amount under non-pecuniary heads should be at least Rs.1,00,000/-in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as every three years 10% (rounded to Rs.3,000/-) be added to Rs.70,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no interference is called for as far as deduction of personal expenses is concerned. 7. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 8. 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. 8. 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) 9. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding of facts as far as negligence is concerned as we concur with the finding of Tribunal as the deceased was driving car which is a smaller vehicle compared to truck. The driver of the truck did not step into the witness box though he is best witness. The charge sheet laid was against the driver of truck. The driver is suppose to be more cautious and therefore we uphold the finding of Tribunal that the deceased be held 25% negligent and was co-author of accident. 10. The total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein below: i. Annual Income Rs.2,89,850/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1,15,940/- iii. Total income: Rs.2,89,850/- + Rs.1,15,940/- Rs.4,05,790/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.2,70,527/- v. Multiplier applicable 16 vi. Loss of dependency Rs.2,70,527 x 16 = Rs.43,28,432/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads to minor daughter Rs.1,00,000/-+ Rs.50,000/- viii. Total compensation Rs.44,78,432/- ix. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1,15,940/- iii. Total income: Rs.2,89,850/- + Rs.1,15,940/- Rs.4,05,790/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.2,70,527/- v. Multiplier applicable 16 vi. Loss of dependency Rs.2,70,527 x 16 = Rs.43,28,432/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads to minor daughter Rs.1,00,000/-+ Rs.50,000/- viii. Total compensation Rs.44,78,432/- ix. Compensation payable to claimants after deductions of 25% negligence on the part of the deceased Rs.44,78,432/--Rs.11,19,608/- = Rs.33,58,824/- 11. 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." 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the difference of 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. 13. Claimants will give their saving account number to the Tribunal once the amounts are deposited. The disbursement would be directly paid to the bank account of the claimants and rest of the amount will be kept in fixed deposit in the name of claimants, minor daughter and mother for a period of three years as more than eight years have elapsed after the accident have taken place. 14. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly as per above direction. The Tribunal shall draw fresh award 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.