JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 20.1.2020 passed by the MACT (Aux), Rajkot in MACP No. 1593/11 primarily on the ground that no negligence can be attributed to the bus driver as he was driving at a permissible speed and has stated that onus to prove rash and negligent driving is on the appellant and that no eyewitness has been examined by the claimants. It is stated that motorcycle dashed with the bus on the left side, where the driver of the heavy vehicle does not have proper and clear vision and therefore, the ground has been raised that the Tribunal has erred in apportioning 100% liability of the driver of the S.T. bus. 2. Advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the S.T. Corporation submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has erroneously laid down 100% liability of the S.T. driver. It is further stated that the rate of interest granted in the year 2020 is beyond the RBI circulars and it should be 6% per annum and further stated that TDS amount of Rs.88,087/- has already been deposited with the income-tax office and thus, submitted that if at all it has to be refunded, then necessary proceedings has to be undertaken by the GSRTC for the refund. 3. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and submitted that the pillion rider of the motorcycle was examined to prove the negligence and accordingly, Savjibhai had deposed at Exh.25 and he is eye-witness to the accident and stated that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of the pillion rider vis-a-vis the bus driver and has concluded regarding the sole liability of the bus driver and further stated that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant consortium money for all the claimants, which the minor and the parents would be entitled apart from the widow as laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 4. To the issue with regard to the rate of interest, Mr. 4. To the issue with regard to the rate of interest, Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that under instruction of the claimants and under consent, the claimants are ready for the reduction in the rate of interest considering the fact that it is GSRTC who is the appellant. 5. The facts of the case suggest that on 26.11.2011, the deceased along with the pillion rider were traveling on Ahmedabad-Rajkot National Highway road on the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-3 DJ-9805 on the side of the road. At about 04:45 hrs., when they were at Sat Hanuman Temple gate, which is situated near Rajkot, S.T. bus took them in impingement and caused the accident. The motorcycle driver succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal, while examining the evidence on record, has appreciated the deposition of the pillion rider Savjibhai and has observed that in accordance to the FIR, charge-sheet has been filed against the S.T. driver. The pillion rider is an eye-witness. The accident had occurred in the evening while they were going from Kuvadva to Rajkot and the bus was also traveling from Kuvadva to Rajkot and the bus driver tried to overtake the motorcyclist and during that process, the bus driver had pushed the bus on the left side and dashed the motorcyclist and the deceased fell on the right hand side of the motorcycle and the wheel of the bus ran over him. While the pillion rider was thrown on the left side and thus, sustained only minor injuries. The learned Tribunal, thus, came to the conclusion that it was because of the negligent act of the bus driver overtaking the motorcycle and driving bus on the extreme side of the road, while S.T. bus driver was not examined by the S.T. Corporation and hence, no rebuttal evidence has come on record. The learned Judge, thus, came to the conclusion that had the bus driver after overtaking the motorcycle had not pushed driven his bus on extreme side of the road, the accident could have been avoided. The evidence on record has been appreciated appropriately. There is no reason to interfere with the conclusion so derived by the Tribunal that the accident has occurred because of the sole negligence of the bus driver. 6. The learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. The deceased left behind him 9 dependents. The evidence on record has been appreciated appropriately. There is no reason to interfere with the conclusion so derived by the Tribunal that the accident has occurred because of the sole negligence of the bus driver. 6. The learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. The deceased left behind him 9 dependents. 40% prospective rise in income has been granted and one-fourth amount has been deducted for the personal expenses. Hence, dependency loss has been considered as Rs.5,250/-. The deceased, at the time of his death, was 36 years old and hence, multiplier of 15 has been applied and the dependency loss has been considered as Rs.9,45,000/-. The said amount is in accordance to the evidence on record and the directions laid down in various Apex Court judgments. The dependents, at the time of the accident, were widow, six minors and parents. The learned Tribunal has granted only consortium money to the widow, while no amount has been granted for the minor as well as to the parents. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), it has been held as under: “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. (Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ) Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th Ed. 1979) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. 1979) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.” 7. Thus, all the claimants would be entitled for the consortium money. Total amount, thus, would come to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 9). Under the head of loss to estate and funeral expenses, amount of Rs.15,000/- under each head have been granted. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Dependency loss Rs. 9,45,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 3,60,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 13,35,000/- 8. The issue has been raised with regard to rate of interest granted by the Tribunal of 9% and the learned advocate Ms. Jhaveri submits at the relevant point of time, interest ought to have been in accordance to the RBI circular and thus, stated that the interest rate is very high. Mr. Shah has given consent for reduction of the interest rate. Jhaveri submits at the relevant point of time, interest ought to have been in accordance to the RBI circular and thus, stated that the interest rate is very high. Mr. Shah has given consent for reduction of the interest rate. This Court, however, considers that the accident is of the 2011, while the judgment was delivered on 20.1.2020. Keeping this aspect in mind, rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 9. The learned Tribunal, while granting compensation, has not passed any order of deduction of TDS amount. However, as stated by Ms. Jhaveri that the Tribunal on its own had asked for deducted TDS amount of Rs.88,087/- and thereby, deposited the remaining compensation amount in the Court. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Company limited Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS) rendered in Special Civil Application no. 4800 of 2021, it has been held that there could not be any deduction under the head of TDS as the amount was received by way of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The amount is stated to have been deposited in the income-tax department, while no such order of deduction has been passed by the Tribunal concerned and as per the referred judgment, TDS amount cannot be deducted. Thus, in view of the said fact, it would be necessary to direct the income-tax department to immediately refund the amount to the S.T. Corporation so that the said amount can be deposited before the Tribunal concerned. 10. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.10,15,000/-, which the claimants would be entitled at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and further the enhanced amount would come to Rs.3,20,000/-, which the S.T. Corporation would be required to deposit at the rate of 7.5% within a period of six weeks. 11. However, it is directed to the income-tax department that the TDS amount of Rs.88,087/- has been deposited in connection with MACP No. 1593/11 has to be immediately paid to the GSRTC so that the same may be deposited before the Tribunal, which the claimants would be entitled to receive. 12. The disbursement of the money be made in accordance to the ratio laid down by the Tribunal. However, total amount that comes in the share of the claimants no. 1, 8 and 9, be paid by way of cheque on proper verification. 12. The disbursement of the money be made in accordance to the ratio laid down by the Tribunal. However, total amount that comes in the share of the claimants no. 1, 8 and 9, be paid by way of cheque on proper verification. Out of the amount which comes to the share of the claimants no. 2 to 5, 30% of the amount shall be disbursed after proper verification and 70% of the amount be invested in a Fixed Deposit with any nationalized Bank for a period of three years and receipt of the same shall be kept in the custody of the Nazir of the concerned Tribunal. The claimants no. 2 to 5 may approach the concerned Tribunal after three years and the Tribunal concerned shall disburse the amount to them along with accumulated interest after proper verification. The amount, which comes to the share of the claimants no. 6 and 7, be invested in a Fixed Deposit with any nationalized Bank for a period of three years and receipt of the same shall be kept in the custody of the Nazir of the concerned Tribunal. The claimants no. 6 and 7 may approach the concerned Tribunal after three years and the Tribunal concerned shall disburse the amount to them along with accumulated interest after proper verification. 13. Since the appeal is disposed of, cross objections does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.