JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondent-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'U.P.S.R.T.C.'). 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.44 of 2010 awarding a sum of Rs.7,23,344/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%. 3. The accident having taken place in the intervening night of 5/6.1.2010 is not in dispute. The vehicle of the U.P.S.R.T.C. being involved in the accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal has attained finality as U.P.S.R.T.C. has chosen not to challenge the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The accident took place in the year 2010. The deceased was 27 years of age and was Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,248/-per month, deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was bachelor and in view of the prevailing judgement, granted multiplier of 13 considering the age of the parents. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income; the multiplier granted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the decisions of the Apex Court. The multiplier of 18 should be granted in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC). It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards filial consortium which should be granted. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days. 7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards filial consortium which should be granted. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days. 7. As against this, learned counsel for respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. has contended that Tribunal has rightly not considered any amount under the head of future loss of income; that the Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the parents which is just and proper as it was the law prevailing in those days. Sri Misra has lastly contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal requires to be allowed on two short points. The decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) was in vogue when the Tribunal has decided the multiplier and passed the impugned award. The Tribunal was suppose to grant future loss of income as the deceased was in employment but the same has not been granted by the Tribunal. It has been held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that the multiplier would be as per the age of the deceased and not that of the parents. The judgment in Ramesh Singh and Another vs. Satbir Singh and another, 2008 (2) SCC 667 held that where there is death of young person who has aged parents as sole dependent, the choice of multiplier has to be determined by the age of deceased or parents whichever is higher. The Tribunal seems to have misinterpreted the judgment and not relied on the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra). Be that as it may, the law is now well settled and we are unable to accept the submission of Sri Misra that multiplier granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. 9. Hence, to the income of Rs.9248/-per month, a rough 50% would be added towards future loss of income as the deceased was in permanent job and was below 40 years of age. The deceased being in the age bracket of 26-30, the multiplier would be 17 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) and as discussed above. Deduction of 1/2 is maintained. The deceased being in the age bracket of 26-30, the multiplier would be 17 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) and as discussed above. Deduction of 1/2 is maintained. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of the decision in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (SC). 10. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below : i. Monthly Income Rs.9,248/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects 50% namely Rs.4,624/- iii. Total income Rs.9,248 + 4,624 = Rs.13,872/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs.6,936/- v. Annual income Rs.6,936 x 12 = Rs.83,232/- vi. Multiplier applicable 17 vii. Loss of dependency Rs.83,232 x 17 = Rs.14,14,944/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads Rs.40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 = 95,000/- ix. Total compensation Rs.15,09,944/- 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." 12. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 13. 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 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. 14. The respondent-Insurance Company shall 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. 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 be passed by Tribunal.. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 17. 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. As 10 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 18. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided without record which was not necessary as in the judgment there is error apparent on the face of record. 19. We had given chance so that U.P.S.R.T.C. may not have to pay more interest but it has been conveyed by Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. has no authority to conciliate the matter. 20. The officer concerned of the U.P.S.R.T.C. may instruct the counsel for conciliation in the matters which are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court which are only for enhancement purposes so that they can save interest.