JUDGMENT Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The accident occurred in the year 2009. The deceased was a house wife, who has behind six months old son and her husband. Income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and her age was in the age bracket of 20-25 years at the time of accident, hence, 40% of income shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 673 (SC)] as it was her minor child where keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 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)]. 3. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the claimants 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)] . 4. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below:- (i) Annual Income : Rs.24,000/- Per annum (Rs.2,000 X 12) (ii) Percentage towards future prospects 40% : Rs.9,600/- (iii) Total income : Rs. 24,000/- + Rs.9,600/- = Rs. 33,600/- (iv) Income after deduction 1/2: Rs.33,600/- - Rs.16,800/- = Rs.16,800/- (v) Multiplier applicable : 18 (vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 16,800/- X 18 = Rs.3,02,400/- (vii) Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs. 70,000/- (viii) Total compensation : Rs.3,02,400/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.3,72,400/- 5. 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. v. 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. Ltd. v. 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 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." 6. 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 forthwith with interest as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 7. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount be paid to the claimants and no amount be kept in fixed deposit. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.