JUDGMENT Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 5.4.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / X-Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.803 of 1998 (Smt.Janki Devi and others v. Bhikam Rathore and others) awarding sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Heard Mr.Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Mr.Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Prem Shankar Sharma in a road accident with the averments that on 17.8.1996, deceased Prem Shankar Sharma was going from his house to Agra Kantt. Railway Station by his bicycle, a Jeep bearing No. UP-80/6270 hit the deceased. The deceased was on his left side at the time of accident. The driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,081/- per month, deducted 1/2 as personal expenses, applied split multiplier of 7 though he was 48 years of age and granted Rs.6,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Total compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.3,00,000/- with 12% rate of interest. 4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal. 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. Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased was working as an Assistant Grain Inspector in Food Corporation of India and, therefore, his income should be considered as Rs.8,719/- per month. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased was working as an Assistant Grain Inspector in Food Corporation of India and, therefore, his income should be considered as Rs.8,719/- per month. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC)], 30% for future prospects be added and the deduction should be 1/3. It is next submitted that the multiplier would be 13 instead of 7 as the deceased was 48 years old and Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages be also granted. 7. The officer of the Insurance Company is present before this Court and though his Advocate submits that the rate of interest at 12% is on higher side and as the amount, which will be decided, would be beyond his statutory limits. 8. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.8,000/-. The deceased will fall within the category of Government Servant and his age was 48 years at the time of accident, 30% shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/3 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 13 will be admissible in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. 9. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards non pecuniary damages. In the light of Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimant shall be entitled to get Rs.70,000/- for loss of consortium in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC (SC) 673] . 10. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellant-claimant is being computed herein below: (i) Annual Income : Rs.8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/- per annum (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 30% : Rs. 28,800/- (iii) Total income : Rs. 10. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellant-claimant is being computed herein below: (i) Annual Income : Rs.8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/- per annum (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 30% : Rs. 28,800/- (iii) Total income : Rs. 96,000/- + Rs.28,000/- = Rs.1,24,800/- (iv) Income after deduction 1/3 : Rs.124,800/- - Rs.41,600/- = Rs.83,200/- (v) Multiplier applicable : 13 (vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs.83,200/- x 13 = Rs.10,81,600/- (vii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs.70,000/- (viii) Total compensation : Rs.10,81,600/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.11,51,600/- 11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till judgment and 6% per annum thereafter. 12. 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 as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 13. 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. 14. 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. The said decision has also been reiterated by High Court Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 5.4.2022. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. This Court is thankful to the officer of the Insurance Company for remaining present and ably assisting this Court.