JUDGMENT Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for UPSRTC and perused the record. 2. This appeal challenges the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad rejecting the claim petition being MACP No.304 of 1994 on 3.2.1997 preferred by the claimant Munni Devi and others but granted amount under the head of no fault liability only by holding that the deceased ( cyclist) was himself negligent in driving the cycle. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 14.6.1994 at about 4:25 the deceased was plying his bicycle at that point of time the accident occurred. The deceased was going by his bicycle and the bicycle was being driven solely. The deceased was 19 years of age. The only surviving of his son, mother, and sister and brother who were younger to him. He was the sole breadwinner of his widow mother. The accident according to the claimants were due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus. 4. On being summoned before the Tribunal, the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation submits that the bus was being plied and the driver was at slow speed of 15 k.m. Per hour and when he reached place on his Muratganj there was a long queue of trucks and, therefore, very cautiously he was driving the bus and that point of time, the cyclist came and dashed with his and died on the spot. 5. Tribunal while considering these facts came to the conclusion that driver was driving the bus cautiously and that the deceased was plying from east to west and was driving the vehicle on the left side of the road. The deceased dashed with truck. 6. PW-2 has been disbelieved by the Tribunal who had in his ocular version supported the FIR lodged by him. His presence that being all eye witness has unfortunately not been believed. 7. On these facts, the evidence will have to be re-valuated and the fact that the deceased died on the spot will also have to looked into. The fact that driver of the bus who is the best witness has been accepted in totality without considering the facts of the case. The deceased was on a cycle. 7. On these facts, the evidence will have to be re-valuated and the fact that the deceased died on the spot will also have to looked into. The fact that driver of the bus who is the best witness has been accepted in totality without considering the facts of the case. The deceased was on a cycle. The impact is not discussed by the Tribunal if the bus was driving slowly the instantaneous death of young boy would not have occurred. 8. The charge sheet was laid against the driver of bus. If the vehicle was driven as slow speed as deposed even if we accept that cycle dashed on the front side of bus truck on the side the evidence of the witness (PW-2) namely driver, the impact will have to be visualized. The reason for not believing Raj Narayan who is an eye witness is also not discussed by the Tribunal. The evidence of driver Hausala Prasad who is interested witness and the best person to depose goes to show that the bus was not being driven at slow speed as conveyed. In this case it cannot be said that the deceased was the sole author of the accident. The accident having occurred and the fact that the deceased died on the spot showed the finding of fact that the cyclist was not totally negligent. The driver of bus has also contributed to the accident having taken place and he has contributed to the tune of 75% as he was driving the bigger vehicle, he had to more cautious. The deceased cannot be said to be a contributor to the accident having taken place to the tune of 25% negligent as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court for consider the negligent of the driver in motor vehicles cases. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. 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. 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. 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. 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 John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v. 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. These provisions (sec.110A and section 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. 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. 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." 10. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bithika Mazmndar v. Sagar Pal (2017) 2 SCC 748 will permit this Court to decide the compensation as the accident is of the year 1994. Twenty five years have elapsed 11. Having heard the counsels for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 14.6.1994 causing death of Pancham Lal who was 19 years of age at the time of accident. The income of the deceased according to this Court in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.9600/- per year looking to his vocation. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 15-20, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be g half. The amount under non-pecuniary heads should be at least Rs.50,000/-in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be g half. The amount under non-pecuniary heads should be at least Rs.50,000/-in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). In view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no interference is called for as far as deduction is concerned. 12. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Annual Income Rs.9600/- ( Rs.800/- per month) ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.3,840/- per year iii. Total income : Rs.9600 + 3840 = Rs.13,440/- per year iv. Income after deduction of g half towards personal expenses : Rs.6720/-as he was bachelor. v. Multiplier applicable : 18 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.6720 x 18 = Rs.1,20,960/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.50,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.1,70,960/-/ ix. Total compensation after reducing 25% negligence on the part of the deceased : Rs. 1,28,220/- 13. As far as issue of interest is concerned, the above, amount awarded by the Tribunal would carry interest at the rate of 7% & the enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. 14. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 15. 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 deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 6% 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. 16. 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. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 17. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma v. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 17. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v. 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 under section 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 v. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount. 18. 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. 19. 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 period has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 20. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.