JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimantsappellants against the judgement and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 27.09.2018 in MACP No.404 of 2016 (Smt. Munni & others Vs. M/s Ahmadabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd and others), by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.7,77,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a motor accident claim petition for seeking compensation of her husband, who died in a road accident. As per averments in the petition, on 20.06.2016 at about 3:00 pm-4:00 pm, the deceased along with Anand, Mahesh and Arun was going from Nachkauli to Dadari Mandi on a Vehicle bearing No.UP 13 T 5479. After sometime, when they reached at Payal Family Dhaba, their tyre got punctured. Teetu and his colleague were repairing the puncture of the vehicle by parking the vehicle on the left corner, a truck bearing No.H.R. 38 U 2577 2023, which was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently, hit the aforesaid vehicle from behind. In this accident Teetu @ Mahendra got injured. Teetu died on the spot. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the judgement and award of the Tribunal nor it has challenged the liability to pay compensation. The issue of negligence has attained finality as no appeal or cross objections are filed by the insurance company. Hence, the only question remains to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation and hence, additional facts are avoided. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was an agriculturalist. The learned Tribunal did not consider the actual income of the deceased and rather assumed his earning only Rs.6,000/- per month. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on lower-side and not granted as per decisions of the Apex Court. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on lower-side and not granted as per decisions of the Apex Court. With regard to the rate of interest, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 6% per annum rate of interest which is even lower then the statutory rate of interest stipulated in U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (amended in 2011). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance vehemently submitted that appellants have not led any evidence regarding the income of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month because it is not proved that the deceased was an agriculturist. It is further submitted that the amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages is properly granted. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award which calls for any interference by this Court. 7. While considering the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased. The deceased was also selling whole-sale vegetables for which documentary evidence as Ext.-31C2/1 & 31C2/65 and likewise documents were produced. The counsel for the appellants before the Tribunal also had relied on the decision of this Court in (2017) III ACC 68 (DB) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reshma Devi & others. The Tribunal brushed aside the documentary evidence. The Tribunal relied on State of Harayan & Others Vs. Jasveer Kaur & Others 2004 (4) ACC, Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Sethi & Others 2003 (2) 326 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Satendra & others 2007 (324) and held that compensation should not be bonanza to the claimants nor should be such a meager amount and relying on the judgement of Reshma Devi (supra), the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month. On what basis, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income was Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be fathomed. The notional income cannot be considered when there was documentary evidence. On what basis, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income was Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be fathomed. The notional income cannot be considered when there was documentary evidence. Documentary evidence goes to show from the record that from wholesale business of the deceased he used to earn at least Rs.8,000/- per month as the bills range from Rs.10,000/- for 21.03.2014 & 23.07.2014 and therefore, he was in the business cannot be brushed aside. Hence, this Court considers the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- and just because the documents were xerox copies the same could not have been brushed aside. This is supported in its view by decision of the Apex court in cases titled (i) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and (ii) Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 as the documents go to show that even for the year 2014 and 2016 the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.10,000/- per month at least for a month from the documentary evidence. On which, reliance is laid, therefore this Court holds that the income of the deceased would be Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has misinterpreted the word ‘self-employed’ and has not granted any amount for future of loss of income. The term ‘self-employed’ would mean a person doing his own business. We clarify this aspect as we have come across many judgements in which this apparent error on the face of the record is found. We would clarify that in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the judgement of the Apex Court in decision, namely, Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, has also considered the term employment. The term ‘self-employed’ is being explained by us and therefore, the income is held to be Rs.10,000/- per month plus 40% as the judgement of Pranay Sethi (supra) would apply and as the deceased was below 40 years this Court further has come across error on the part of the Tribunal which is and we would like to emphasize upon the Tribunals in the State not to go by the Second Schedule as it is meant for compensation under Section163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not claim for Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As far as Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, the judgement of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) has to be followed and the later judgements which lay down grant of non-pecuniary damages. As far as rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal could not have granted 6% which is even less than statutory rate of interest as per Section 220 of the Uttar Pradesh State Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (amended in 2011). 8. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 for personal expenses in accordance with the judgement of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . We are not convinced with the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 while it should have been of 15 as the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40. 9. Under non-pecuniary heads, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which is not in consonance with the judgement of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, hence, the appellants shall be entitled to get Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary heads. The deceased had three minor children, they would be entitled to consortium of Rs.50,000/- each as they have lost the affection of father at a very tender age. 10. Hence, the total compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below : i. Annual Income Rs.10,000/- x 12 Rs.1,20,000/- ii. Percentage towards Future-Prospects (40%) Rs.1,20,000 /- x 40% Rs.48,000/- i. Annual Income Rs.10,000/- x 12 Rs.1,20,000/- ii. Percentage towards Future-Prospects (40%) Rs.1,20,000 /- x 40% Rs.48,000/- iii. Total Income Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.48,000/- Rs.1,68,000/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.56,000/- Rs.1,12,000/- v. Multiplier applicable 15 vi. Loss of dependency Rs.1,12,000/- x 15 Rs.16,80,000/- vii. Amount under Non-pecuniary Heads Rs.1,50,000/-+Rs.70,000/- Rs.2,20,000/- ix. Total Compensation Rs.16,80,000/-+Rs.2,20,000/- Rs.19,00,000/- 11. 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. Total Compensation Rs.16,80,000/-+Rs.2,20,000/- Rs.19,00,000/- 11. 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." 13. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 6% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% on enhanced compensation in the light of the above judgment. 14. 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 insurance company shall deposit the 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. 15. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 2007 (2) GLH 291 ] and this High Court if 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 any 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 but 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. 16. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, 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. 17. We request the Registrar General to place a copy of this Judgement before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for circulating it to the Tribunals for their guidances, so that, the Tribunals may not commit the same error as committed in this litigation.