JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 200 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Agrawal and Others Vs. Ahsan Ali and Others), whereby the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.9,69,500/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. Heard Mr. R.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None has appeared for the owner, when the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved, as also the claimants have felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal. 4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, namely from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment for the death of Smt. Rajni Agrawal, wife of claimant-appellant no.1 and mother of other minor children. 5. The brief facts as culled out from the record and the judgment are that Smt. Rajni Agrawal wife of Raj Kumar Agrawal, who was aged about 39 years and averred to be earning of Rs.40,000/-per month by doing service, farming and other business. On the fateful day, when she was going alongwith Smt. Kanchan Agrawal from Shahjahanpur to Nanital by car bearing registration no.27 B 8751. The aforesaid car was being driven by one Awadesh @ Nirdos Kumar Saxena. A truck bearing registration no. U.P. 22A 9857 being driven very rashly and negligently came and dashed with the car. The car driver and both the women sustain injuries. 6. The driver of the car and Smt. Rajani Agrawal died while they were being taken to the hospital. The First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the truck. The New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. (in short “Insurance Company”) filed its written statement wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle was being driven against the policy and there is violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they were not liable to pay any compensation. The New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. (in short “Insurance Company”) filed its written statement wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle was being driven against the policy and there is violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they were not liable to pay any compensation. They took the plea that there is no non-impleadment of all the legal representatives of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was not doing farming activities and was not engaged in any job nor she was having any business. It is also contended that deceased did not die out of the injuries caused to her in the said accident. The driver of the car dashed with a unknown vehicle due to his own negligence and as the number of the said vehicle could not be known, only with the view to get compensation in collusion with the police and doctors in pre-planed manner and on concocted grounds, the claim petition was filed. 7. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the driver of the car was not having valid driving licence nor there was any valid registration certificate nor other valid papers. It is also avert that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount as the driver of the truck had no endorsement and could not have driven the vehicle. The opposite party no.5, Satya Narain Agrawal has also filed his reply admitting the averments made in the claim petition. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the day of the accident. The legal heirs of the owner of the car have been substituted. The Insurance Company also took the plea of denial. The respondent nos.1 to 3 did not file any reply, therefore, the matter came be heard against them ex parte by Tribunal. The learned Tribunal framed about four issues. 8. The petitioners filed list of certain documentary evidences. No oral or documentary evidence has been led on behalf of any of opposite parties. 9. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the decision dated 27.01.2007 contending that the same is against the evidence on record and requires to be set aside. The learned Tribunal framed about four issues. 8. The petitioners filed list of certain documentary evidences. No oral or documentary evidence has been led on behalf of any of opposite parties. 9. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the decision dated 27.01.2007 contending that the same is against the evidence on record and requires to be set aside. It is also submitted that the husband of the deceased was earning person and, therefore, he would not be entitled to get any compensation for death of his wife. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court titled Daljeet Singh and Others Vs. Hardeep Singh and Others, 2002 (1) TAC 613 (MP) that earning husband cannot claim any compensation on basis of dependency on death of his wife in accident. The main contention is that husband was not entitled to get any amount and the income of the deceased was not proved. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Suchitra Sinha and Others Vs. Baij Nath and Others, 2005 (3) TAC 533 (M.P.), so as to contend that income tax return could not have been considered to decide the income of deceased. The Insurance Company has also challenged the findings on the issue of negligence. A plea is taken that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 13 and not 16 and also should have gone by the schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. The contentions and challenge as culled out from the grounds of appeal raised by the Insurance Company are that one of the claimants namely husband was not dependent on his wife, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation on account of dependency, for which, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on the decision of Suchitra Sinha (Supra), so as to contend that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by not deducting 50% for her personal expenses as the other dependents were minor children. It is also submitted that husband of the deceased himself was earning Rs.35,000 to 40,000/-per month and he has re-married during the pendency of litigation. It is also submitted that husband of the deceased himself was earning Rs.35,000 to 40,000/-per month and he has re-married during the pendency of litigation. It is further submitted that assessment years of income tax returns were for the period subsequent to the death of the deceased namely 2003-04 was not admissible in evidence as per the judgment of Suchitra Sinha (Supra). 11. The next ground for assailing the judgment by Insurance Company of learned Tribunal is based on the fact that the driver of the car was also contributor to the accident and they were liable to be joined as party and, therefore, the said amount should be deducted, for which, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on the judgment of Smt. Indraneerja Durari Vs. Madras Motor and General As. Co. & Others, ACC 1996 (1) SC 335 and Gurmeet Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, TAC 2006 (3) 958 of Punjab and Haryana High Court. 12. In view of the judgment of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mamta And Ors., 2016 AIR SC 948, wherein it has been held that all the issues raised by the court of appeal, when appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is filed, hence, we are go to decide each ground raised. We would first deal with the issue of negligence raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company. 13. The main two grounds urged by the Insurance Company for assailing the award as quantum and negligence. At the outset, it is clear that no issues which could be taken for avoidance of policy are urged even in written grounds of appeal. None of the principles enunciated for avoidance of policy as averred before the Tribunal. The driver of the truck was having valid driving licence. There was no technical or other breach for which the Insurance Company could avoid its liability and said findings have attained finality. Appeal of Insurance Company being F.A.F.O. No. 1266 of 2007. Issue of negligence rather contributory negligence:-The submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company that driver in which deceased was travelling was also negligent and the amount qua his negligence be deducted is taken for discussion as to whether finding of Tribunal required to be interfered or concurred even if interfered what would be the consequence payable to legal representatives of deceased. 14. 14. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance take or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which 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 in accident cases involving vehicles of different magnitudes or single vehicle. 15. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is author of the accident or co-author would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 17. The term contributory negligence has to be viewed in light of term composite negligence. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 where the court has explained the term contributory and composite and liability of fortuitous wherein the court has held as under : "4. The term contributory negligence has to be viewed in light of term composite negligence. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 where the court has explained the term contributory and composite and liability of fortuitous wherein the court has held as under : "4. It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant.” 18. As far as the claimants are concerned, the death of the wife/mother can be said to be out of the accidental injuries. Even if we consider the negligence, it would be composite negligence qua the legal heirs. The findings of fact as far as issue of negligence is concerned, goes to show that the accident occurred in morning at 6:30 AM on the national highway involving a truck and a car. The driver of the truck applied short break by which the truck dashed with the car and the car came under the truck (car truck ke niche dab gayi). The two ladies and driver got injured. The charge sheet and the FIR were lodged against the driver of the truck. The car was being driven by one Awadesh. The driver and wife of P.W.-1 died on the spot. The two ladies and driver got injured. The charge sheet and the FIR were lodged against the driver of the truck. The car was being driven by one Awadesh. The driver and wife of P.W.-1 died on the spot. The oral testimony of P.W.-2, Kanchan Agrawal who was in the car and was injured eye witness has categorically deposed that driver of truck was negligent. The truck driver was drives the truck in rash and negligent manner. The submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that truck loaded with patatos cannot be driven in a rash and negligent manner cannot be accepted and, therefore, we concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal as far as the negligence is concerned. As far as the submission that the husband cannot be granted any amount, we would be dealing with the same in the appeal preferred by the claimants, when we decide the same. Compensation in Appeal No.1209 of 2007. 19. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the income of the deceased was Rs.32,000/-per month (rounded figure) but the Tribunal has wrongly considered income to be Rs.7,500/- only. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has brushed aside the Income Tax Returns. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the decisions in (a) Sangita Arya & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2020 LawSuit (SC) 432, (b) Rukmani Jethani and Others Vs. Gopal Singh and others, 2021 (4) T.A.C. 23 (SC), (c) Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) to buttress his submission that the finding of the Tribunal as far as income of deceased is concerned is bad and requires reconsideration. 20. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has relied on the judgment of Kirti and another etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2021 AIR SC 353 to claim higher compensation. 21. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that the deceased was survived by her husband and two minor children and, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal. 22. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 22. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 and the later decision of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the claimants has lastly submitted that the interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days. 23. As against this, learned counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the income which is claimed cannot be granted. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that deduction towards personal expenses is just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the amount awarded under non pecuniary heads and interest granted by the Tribunal are just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. It is further submitted and reiterated that deduction for personal expenses should 1/2 as her husband was not dependent on the deceased. 24. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considering the income tax returns and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the claimants, we hold that had the deceased been alive, she would have been earning Rs.32,060/-per month. The deceased was Director in a Company. However, we are in agreement with learned counsel for the respondent that from the income, at least Income Tax should be deducted and, therefore, we consider the income of the deceased to be Rs.30,000/-per month. Addition of 25% toward future loss of income is granted and multiplier of 16 granted by the Tribunal is reduced to 15. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, we are in agreement with learned counsel for the Insurance Company that it should be 1/2nd. Learned Tribunal has not considered the income tax returns. As according to the Tribunal, the income tax returns were dated 31.07.2002. Subsequently, the return dated 14.09.2003 also Rs.32,000/- was deducted towards income tax. The learned Tribunal has mis-directed itself in not considering the income tax returns. Deceased was a director from 01.04.2003 to 30.09.2003. The income tax returns have to be considered. As according to the Tribunal, the income tax returns were dated 31.07.2002. Subsequently, the return dated 14.09.2003 also Rs.32,000/- was deducted towards income tax. The learned Tribunal has mis-directed itself in not considering the income tax returns. Deceased was a director from 01.04.2003 to 30.09.2003. The income tax returns have to be considered. On what basis, learned Tribunal decided that her income would be Rs.5,000/-per month cannot be fathomed by us. The Tribunal has considered her income of Rs.2,500 that of agricultural income and Rs.2,500/- for her utility as a house wife. The finding is without any basis and we cannot accept the same. The Tribunal has held as the income tax returns are even for a period after the accident occurred, they cannot be accepted as truthful. The accident occurred on 28.09.2003 and, therefore, for amounting year as well as tax is concerned, the income tax return of 2004-05 have to be filled in as her income up to September have to be considered. 25. We would have granted to the husband, amount for loss of love and affection of the wife but he has re-married and the learned Tribunal has also not apportioned or granted any amount. We uphold the same. 26. As far as amount under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- plus 10% rise in every three years in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, we round up the figure to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. 27. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below : i. Monthly Income Rs.30,000/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects 25% namely Rs.7,500/- iii. Total income Rs.30,000 +7,500/- = Rs.37,500/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2nd towards personal expenses Rs.18,750/- v. Annual income Rs.18,750 x 12 = Rs.2,25,000/- vi. Multiplier applicable 15 vii. Loss of dependency Rs.2,25,000 X 15 = Rs.33,75,000/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads Rs.1,00,000/- ix. Total compensation Rs.34,75,000/- 28. Learned Tribunal has unfortunately granted 6% rate of interest, which was not the repo-rate applicable in the year of judgment namely 27.01.2007. At least, it should have been 7% per annum. 14 years have elapsed, we do not disturb the same and the rate of interest on awarded amount is maintained. However, on the enhanced amount, it would be be 7.5% per annum. 29. At least, it should have been 7% per annum. 14 years have elapsed, we do not disturb the same and the rate of interest on awarded amount is maintained. However, on the enhanced amount, it would be be 7.5% per annum. 29. 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." 30. In view of the above, the appeals filed by claimants as well as Insurance Company are partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum 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. The claimants shall furnish their bank account numbers and on deposit of amount, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount to the said accounts. 31. 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 be passed by Tribunal. 32. 31. 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 be passed by Tribunal. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. 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 without F.D.R. 35. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided. Record be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith.