JUDGMENT : Ajai Tyagi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment & order dated 30.05.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, District Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.158 of 2006 (Smt. Raj Biri and Others Vs. Regional Manager, Regional Office, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,600/-as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Mahesh in a road accident with the averments that on 19.12.2005, Mahesh-deceased along with his friends was going to his house from Delhi by tractor, when he reached at village Luhari, a bus bearing no. U.P. 14 T 9563 was coming, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid bus being driven in such a manner dashed the deceased’s tractor. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. 3. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/-per month while the deceased was a farmer and also doing animal husbandry. Deceased was in a dairy business and land record shows that he had property, which was there and was earning Rs.48,000/-per month but learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which, in our opinion is bad on facts. Deceased was in a dairy business and land record shows that he had property, which was there and was earning Rs.48,000/-per month but learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which, in our opinion is bad on facts. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has granted multiplier of 13 and but has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently objected the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants on the issue of enhancement of compensation. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation as per law admissible to the claimants which does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that it is an internal dispute between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle and the appellants being legal representative of the third party, they cannot be punished for non production of the driving licence by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that deceased was survived by his wife, three minor children and mother, who were dependent on him, hence 1/4th should be deducted. It is also submitted that appellants-claimants are also entitled to get non pecuniary damages and the same may be granted. It is submitted that recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the controversy and settled the law regarding the death of a child in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme Court) be made applicable. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that in spite of repeated directions, Scheduled-II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income of Rs.15,000/-per annum for non earning members is not just and reasonable. It is further submitted that the Apex Court that in the cases of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) TAC 926 and Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (4) TAC 5, it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupees and cost of living. 9. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) TAC 926 and Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (4) TAC 5, it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupees and cost of living. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Apex Court took the notional income of the deceased who was 7 years old at Rs.25,000/-per annum. In our case, the deceased was running his business and was having 35 buffalos and, therefore, we consider his income to be Rs.5,000/-per month. Since, the deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was 35 years at the time of accident, 40% shall be added towards future loss of income as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 will be admissible in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. We cannot accept the submission that 1/4 be the deduction of personal expenses of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has rightly deduced 1/3rd for personal expenses, we also maintain the same. 10. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards non pecuniary damages. No reasons are assigned and only Rs.2,000/-is awarded for funeral expenses. In the light of Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/-each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Apart from it, the wife of the deceased shall also be entitled to get Rs..40,000/-for loss of consortium. In this way, the appellants shall be entitled to get Rs.70,000/-for non-pecuniary heads. Three minor children of the deceased, lost their father at a very tender age, hence, children of the deceased shall be entitled to get Rs.50,000/-each towards loss of parental love in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (Supra). 11. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below: (i) Annual Income Rs.60,000/-Per annum (Rs.5,000 X 12) (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% : Rs. 24,000/- (iii) Total income Rs. 60,000/-+ Rs.24,000/-= Rs. 11. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below: (i) Annual Income Rs.60,000/-Per annum (Rs.5,000 X 12) (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% : Rs. 24,000/- (iii) Total income Rs. 60,000/-+ Rs.24,000/-= Rs. 84,000/- (iv) Income after deduction 1/3 Rs.84,000 – 28,000/-= Rs.56,000/- (v) Multiplier applicable 16 (vi) Loss of Dependency Rs. 56,000/-X 16 = Rs.8,96,000/- (vii) Amount under non pecuniary head Rs.70,000/- (viii) Filial Consortium Rs.50,000 X 3 = Rs.1,50,000/- (ix) Total compensation Rs.8,96,000 + Rs.70,000/-+ Rs.1,50,000/-= Rs.11,16,000/- Submissions for breach of policy conditions as far as licence is concerned. 12. Mr. Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that this is an appeal which is continuation of the proceedings. He can raise oral cross objection and submitted that there is no finding of fact that U.P.S.R.T.C. had not examined the driver nor did it produce any record showing the driver was certified to drive the bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. on the date of accident and, therefore, the finding is bad and the Insurance Company should be given recovery rights. 13. As against this, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C. submits that in fact though filing of reply, it is categorically mentioned that the driver was having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle but it is accepted position of fact that the same was not produced before the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that this court may consider the application under Order XLI Rule 27, which was filed long back, which has heavily relied on the decision of this Court passed in First Appeal From Order (Defective) No.171 of 2000 of the learned Single Judge. 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has heavily relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, 2018 (0) Supreme (SC) 42, so as to contend that onus would then shift on Insurance Company to rebut the same. The driver of the bus or the owner in whose possession the licence should produce the same and prove the same. 15. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The driver of the bus or the owner in whose possession the licence should produce the same and prove the same. 15. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It should be 7.5% on the enhanced amount 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. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal was dismissed in default on 03.04.2018 and the same came to be restored recently. However, none has appeared for the Oriental Insurance Company till 08.10.2021, therefore, interest shall not be deducted for the same period. The mute question would be who would pay to the claimants. The primary duty is of the driver and owner namely, U.P.S.R.T.C. who is the owner of the vehicle. We first direct the Insurance Company to deposit the amount, and we grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company to recover from the U.P.S.R.T.C. who shall by satisfy that the driver had a proper valid driving licence and the vehicle was plied with all requisite documents. The said exercise would be completed within 12 weeks from today. 17. While going through the facts, it is clear that U.P.S.R.T.C. though did not produce the licence before the Tribunal. It has by way of application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., produced the copy, which goes to show that they have verified that the driver was authorized to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal could not have shifted the burden on the Insurance Company as the judgment of Pappu and Others (Supra) is very clear. It has by way of application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., produced the copy, which goes to show that they have verified that the driver was authorized to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal could not have shifted the burden on the Insurance Company as the judgment of Pappu and Others (Supra) is very clear. The Tribunal could not have held that it was primary duty of the Insurance Company. The finding of issue no.2 is whether the driver had proper driving licence. The Tribunal has answered the said question as held against the Insurance Company and has passed the award against all the respondents and, therefore, this oral submission is also considered. The judgment of Apex Court in Pappu and Others (Supra) enjoining the duty of the owner to file document which was not filed. The dispute is between the U.P.S.R.T.C. and the Insurance Company. In the beginning, Insurance Company would satisfy the award and if Insurance Company is able to satisfy the executing Court that the driver did not have any driving licence, they would be entitled to recover the amount. As this is the special case of government agency to be going for recovery rights, if the U.P.S.R.T.C. by cogent evidence, proves by the Insurance Company that the driver who was engaged by them was having valid driving licence. The matter should end there, failing which, the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount of the amount deposited and if the U.P.S.R.T.C. satisfy that the driver had a proper driving licence, if they have deposited any amount by virtue of the award of the Tribunal, they would be entitled to reclaimed the amount from Insurance Company. 18. 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 respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 08 weeks from today with interest as discussed above 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. 19. It appears that from 2008, we do not find as per the record, whether any amount was deposited or not. The responsible officer will explain to the learned Tribunal as to why the amount was not deposited when there is no stay order in the matter. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 19. It appears that from 2008, we do not find as per the record, whether any amount was deposited or not. The responsible officer will explain to the learned Tribunal as to why the amount was not deposited when there is no stay order in the matter. 20. It appears from the judgment and order that unfortunately, the learned Tribunal Judge in the operative portion has not clarified who should pay the compensation as it has held all the respondents would be liable. It was an internal dispute between the Insurance Company and the U.P.S.R.T.C. We request the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court to convey our concern to the Motor Claims Tribunal not to pass such omnibus order that all would be liable but satisfied which respondent would be liable to pay and which will be liable to indemnify. We also direct the Insurance Companies involved and directed to pay other authorities not to grant stay unto themselves so that the claimants do not suffer for the internal dispute between the owner and the Insurance Company, where award is passed against all. 21. 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 in 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 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. 22. 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. 22. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, vide order dated 27.01.2022, 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.