JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, none present for the respondents/owner for Insurance Company for 18 years. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and order/award dated 29.8.1995 passed by M.A.C.T/IIIrd-Additional District Judge, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 188 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs. 34,100/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 17.02.1994 at about 9:45 a.m, claimant Devendra Singh was sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle which was been driven by his son and when they reached in front of Ganes Rice Mill on Radha Raman Raod, Mianpuri and was going towards collectorate, Mainpuri at that time another motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P. 84/5977 came therefrom adverse side being rashly and negligently driven by it collided with the motorcycle of the claimant’s son resulting in to falling down of claimant’s motorcycle and caused grievous to the claimant. Claimant was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Mainpuri for treatment and thereafter he also took medical from some another doctor but ultimately claimant had to visit doctors of Kanpur for his treatment. 5. The injured was 56 years old at the time of accident and was serving in the planning office of U.P. Government Collectorate, Mainpuri and was drawing Rs. 4300/-p.m as salary. He was not a income tax payer and was precluded from his work during the period of his treatment and further he was incapacitated by 15% for rendering and devoting himself from work in future due to which he suffered loss in future. The tribunal has considered his income to be Nil, granted Rs. 32,100/-towards loss of medical expenses, granted Rs. 2,000/-towards pain, shock and sufferings and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 34,100/-. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount under the head loss of income has been granted by the Tribunal which is unjust and should be at least Rs.3000/-per month. 32,100/-towards loss of medical expenses, granted Rs. 2,000/-towards pain, shock and sufferings and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 34,100/-. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount under the head loss of income has been granted by the Tribunal which is unjust and should be at least Rs.3000/-per month. It is submitted that no amount is granted under the head of monthly loss to injured which is also unjust and should be at least 3000%. It is submitted that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncements: (i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330 ; (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 ; (iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 ; and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. (v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.). (vi) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725 as the deceased-claimant has sustained 15% disability. The moot question is Was this a functional disability? The answer is left open for other matter as in this case injured has died and was a Government servant aged 56 years of age. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned as the injured was the Government servant and has suffered 15% disability, the amount awarded cannot be said to be such which is on very lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased has suffered a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-namely Rs. 80,000/-on medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/-for future economic loss, Rs. 50,000/-for physician and mental pain, Rs. 20,000/-for special diet and Rs. 50,000/- for disability. As far as facts and circumstances of case and the fact that the injured has already passed away an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/-lum sum with additional Rs. 10,000/-for other ancillary expenses would meet the ends of justice. 9. 50,000/-for future economic loss, Rs. 50,000/-for physician and mental pain, Rs. 20,000/-for special diet and Rs. 50,000/- for disability. As far as facts and circumstances of case and the fact that the injured has already passed away an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/-lum sum with additional Rs. 10,000/-for other ancillary expenses would meet the ends of justice. 9. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of judgment of the tribunal and 6% thereafter. 10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company 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. 12. 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 is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Record be sent back to tribunal forthwith. 17. This Court is thankful to Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant for ably assisting this Court.