JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and Sri Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 30.1.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 626 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs.27,12,928/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The Tribunal has held that it is proved that vehicle was insured and there was no breach of policy and Insurance Company has accepted the findings as far as their liability is concerned. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The accident took place on 10.10.2013. The deceased was 30 years of age, he was a Teacher in Bitaha Primary School and was earning Rs.27,238/-per month. The Tribunal considered his annual income to be Rs.3,11,934 after deducting income tax and house rent allowance from the salary. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.9,500/- towards non pecuniary damages. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that deduction of House Rent Allowance could not have been made and has relied on the decision in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.). 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income by assigning reason that Guru Narain Singh, father of the deceased, is a retired government servant and is getting pension, therefore, he has not been dependent on the deceased, the mother of the deceased-has been dependent on the father of the deceased and the widow would have been appointed on compassionate ground. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in Civil Appeal No. 3269-3270 of 2007 (Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. & Anr,) decided on 28.1.2014. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in Civil Appeal No. 3269-3270 of 2007 (Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. & Anr,) decided on 28.1.2014. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has lost sight of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 and subsequent judgment and has granted only Rs.9500/-towards non pecuniary damages which is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the decision of the Apex Court. 9. It is lastly submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court as the widow was given compassionate appointment and the father of the deceased was also getting pension. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and does not require any enhancement. 11. The judgments on which the Tribunal has relied to grant lesser multiplier cannot be said to be laying down the law of just compensation. The said judgments stand eclipsed by the later judgments which should have been looked into by the Tribunal in the over zeal to hold reasonable compensation. 12. Reasonable compensation cannot be what the learned Judge/Tribunal feels, it has to be just compensation as per the principle of assessment. The decision in Sunita Devi v. Vimal Dwivedi, 2013 (3) TAC 844 has already been eclipsed by the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekhaben & Others, AIR 2017 SC 2580 and also the amount of pension cannot be deducted. 13. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be laying down proper law. 13. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be laying down proper law. It is based on surmises and on notion of the learned Judge that the family should be given what is reasonable according to him and, that is how, he has negatived the future loss of income giving reason that the father was a pensioner and not dependent on the deceased, the mother was dependent on the father and the widow could get compassionate appointment and would get pension. 14. The Apex Court in Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654 has found merit in the submission that the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 has no bar to grant future prospects over and above the thumb rule where the evidence on record would warrant that the increase was actual and the evidence led should be so that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage. In that case, the Court can award higher compensation. The decision in Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 2088 also would permit us to take a different view then that taken by the Tribunal. The judgment in K.R. Madhusudan & Others v. Administrative Officer & Anr, (2011) 4 SCC 689 has not been considered by the Apex Court while deciding this controversy. The said judgment has also been referred by the Apex Court in N. Jayasree vs. Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 5218 & Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, 2013 (15) SCC 45 which will apply. 15. It is also pertinent here to discuss Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under: 166. The said judgment has also been referred by the Apex Court in N. Jayasree vs. Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 5218 & Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, 2013 (15) SCC 45 which will apply. 15. It is also pertinent here to discuss Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under: 166. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal represe0.ntatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 1[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] 2[***] 3[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.] 16. According to this Section father is Class II heir and widow, minor children and mother of the deceased come under Class I heirship. The reasoning given by the Tribunal to not to award future prospect and decreasing the multiplier to 13 are not germane. According to this Section father is Class II heir and widow, minor children and mother of the deceased come under Class I heirship. The reasoning given by the Tribunal to not to award future prospect and decreasing the multiplier to 13 are not germane. We would not say that the reasonings are absurd but the matter under beneficial legislation could not have been dealt with in such a manner. The Tribunal has granted multiplier of 13. It has lost sight of the fact that the deceased left behind him also his widow and two minor children. The compassionate appointment cannot be a ground for denial of future prospect as the salary which the widow would get, would be for the services which she renders. The law, as far as multiplier is concerned, has to be followed by the Tribunals would be the decisions in the case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (Supra). 17. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajpriya (Infra) and has contended that just and reasonable compensation be granted and not on higher side. This is perverse finding. Reasonable and just compensation has to be as per evidence and not what Tribunal on surmise considers reasonable. The Apex Court in the judgment cited namely Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 (0) AIJEL -SC 31621 held that multiplier of 12 would be granted looking to the age of the deceased and not because of the amount granted would be more. The age of the deceased in the said matter was 38 years. This controversy has now been put to rest and the Tribunal should have considered the same. It could not have decreased the multiplier placing reliance in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. K.I. Bindu, 2005 (0) AIJEL-SC 35930 which are eclipsed by later decisions. 18. We are even fortified in our view by the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v. Mohd. Jameel and SC, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC) so as to consider what is just compensation and take holistic approach. 19. In view of the above, we recalculate the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants-appellants. The income of the deceased was Rs.27,238/- per month namely Rs.3,26,856/-per annum. Jameel and SC, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC) so as to consider what is just compensation and take holistic approach. 19. In view of the above, we recalculate the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants-appellants. The income of the deceased was Rs.27,238/- per month namely Rs.3,26,856/-per annum. Out of which, the Tribunal has deducted House Rent Allowance of Rs.8040/-(670 per month) and Income Tax of Rs.6882/-(Annual). In view of the decision in Vimal Kanwar (Supra) deduction of House Rent Allowance could not have been done and the only deduction permissible from the salary of the deceased is income tax. Hence, out of Rs.3,26,856/-, only Income Tax of Rs.6882/-would be deducted and, therefore, the income for the purpose of computing compensation would be Rs.3,26,856-6882 = 3,19,974/-per annum. To which, 50% of the amount would be added towards future loss of income as the deceased was 30 years of age and it was not pointed out to us also as what would be future income loss, hence, we award 50% towards future loss of income the deceased. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is maintained. The deceased being in the age bracket of 26-30, the multiplier applicable would be 17. We grant addition of Rs.40,000/-towards spousal consortium and Rs.50,000/-each to the minor children who has lost their father at very prime age. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: (i) Annual Income 3,19,974 (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 50% namely Rs.1,59,987/- (iii) Total income Rs.3,19,974/- + Rs.1,59,987 = Rs.4,79,961/- (iv) Income after deduction of 1/3 rd Rs.3,19,974/- (v) Multiplier applicable 17 (vi) Loss of dependency Rs.3,19,974. x 17 = Rs.54,39,558/- (vii) Amount under non-pecuniary head Rs.40,000 + 50,000 + 50,000 = Rs.1,40,000/- (viii) Total compensation 55,79,558/- 20. 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 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." 21. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 22. 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 amount be deposited within 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. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 23. 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.. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 27. We request the learned Registrar General that a copy of this order be circulated to the Tribunals in the State of Uttar Pradesh after seeking approval from Hon'ble the Chief Justice so that the Tribunal may not commit such mistake of not granting future loss of income and reduction of multiplier. 28. A copy of judgment be sent to the concerned Judge so that he may not make such mistakes in future and we deprecate the reasoning given by him.