JUDGMENT : The instant Misc. Appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment/Award dated 29.11.2016 passed by the District Judge-I cum M.A.C.T., Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 27 of 2015 aggrieved from the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The factum of the accident by the offending vehicle, the age of deceased, income of deceased and legal heirs left by him after his death are not disputed. The insurance of the offending vehicle is not disputed. There is no dispute in regard to any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3. The dispute between the parties is on the point of quantum of compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the excess amount under the conventional head such as funeral expenses 25,000/-, loss of estate 1,00,000/-, loss of consortium 1,00,000/- and under the heading of love and affection 1,00,000/- which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is also further submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is @ 9% per annum; while the same cannot be awarded more than 7.5% per annum in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharampal and Sons vrs. State of U.P. Road Transport Corporation, reported in [2008 (4) JCR (SC)]. 5. Per contra the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and contended that the learned Tribunal though has awarded the amount under the conventional head against the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi (supra), yet no amount was paid by the learned Tribunal for the future prospect which should have been given by the learned Tribunal in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi (supra) taking into consideration the age of the deceased 30 years, the 40% should have been added under the head of future prospect in the income of the deceased. In view of the above, the total amount of compensation which was awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. 6. Pranay Sethi (supra) taking into consideration the age of the deceased 30 years, the 40% should have been added under the head of future prospect in the income of the deceased. In view of the above, the total amount of compensation which was awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. 6. The following point of determination is being framed for disposal of the appeal: Whether the quantum of the compensation awarded is excessive ? 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised this plea that under the conventional head the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is much higher in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in which under the conventional head the maximum amount can be awarded 70,000/-; but the learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the learned Tribunal while passing the award has not added the future prospect 40% in the income of the deceased while computing the quantum of the compensation. 8. The just compensation which should have been awarded to the claimants is computed as under: 8.1 Monthly income is 9,000/-, therefore annual income will be 12 x 9000= 108000/- 8.2 The age of deceased was 30 years and in view of Judgment rendered in Sarla Verma & Ors. vrs. D.T.C. & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier of 17 will be applicable. As such the total income amounts 108000 x 17= 18,36,000/- 8.3 The multiplier of 18 has been wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal, which should have been 17. 8.4 Out of this amount of 18,36,000/- the 1/3rd amount of the income which was incurred by the deceased for his personal expenses amounting Rs.6,12,000/- shall be deducted. 8.5 After deduction it will be 18,36,000-6,12,000= 12,24,000/-and in the same amount 40% future prospect shall be added in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi(supra) keeping in view the age of deceased being 30 years which comes as 4,89,600/-. 8.5 After deduction it will be 18,36,000-6,12,000= 12,24,000/-and in the same amount 40% future prospect shall be added in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi(supra) keeping in view the age of deceased being 30 years which comes as 4,89,600/-. 8.6 As such the total income of the deceased would be 12,24,000+ 4,89,600= 17,13,600/- 8.7 Under the conventional head such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and love and affection in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi (supra) may be awarded 70,000/- 8.8 Therefore, the total amount of the award would come as 17,13,600 +70,000= 17,83,600/- 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded the total amount of compensation 17,21,000/-. As such the amount of the award though computed wrongly, yet not excessive in view of the correct computation of the compensation amount taking into consideration the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma (supra). 10. So far as the issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% p.a. as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Mannat Johal & Ors. (2019) 15 SCC 260 where the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 @ 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 the High Court. 11. It is pertinent to mention here the instant appeal has been directed on behalf of the Insurance Company assailing the quantum of the compensation. Herein the para 8 of the Judgment of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vrs. The Divisional Manager & Anr. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 becomes relevant to reproduce as under: 8. 11. It is pertinent to mention here the instant appeal has been directed on behalf of the Insurance Company assailing the quantum of the compensation. Herein the para 8 of the Judgment of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vrs. The Divisional Manager & Anr. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 becomes relevant to reproduce as under: 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 11.1 In view of the aforesaid Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Ranjana Prakash (supra), the instant appeal which is preferred on behalf of the insurer of the offending vehicle, deserves to be dismissed. 12. This Misc. Appeal is dismissed. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is affirmed. 13. Let the record of learned court below be sent back along with copy of the Judgment and also the statutory amount if any deposited be sent back to the learned Tribunal.