JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1078 of 2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.76,200/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization to the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant received serious bodily injuries as well as fractures of Tibia Fibula of bones on the left leg while the appellant was standing and chit chatting on the bank of the road at near Delvada Primary School, Kalri-Modhera Road on 17-Jun-2001 at around 12:00 noon while the one Mr. Chimanlal Manordas Patel along with Mr. Dashrathbhai Patel while proceeding on a scooter, saw the appellant and therefore halted for a while to chit chat with the appellant, at that time one matador bearing registration no. GJ- 3-X-1214 came from Becharaji being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in an excessive speed, dashed with the appellant as well as the Chimanlal Manordas Patel and in the result both received serious bodily injuries as well as the fracture injuries. 2.1 An FIR was registered for the aforestated offence before the concerned Police Station having jurisdiction. The appellant has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.300000/- before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as stated herein above. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant mainly argued that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on much lower sip. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income of the victim while deciding compensation for future loss of income and instead has taken Rs.2000/- per month as income. He would further submit that multiplier of 5, which is unknown to the regular formula available for assessment of compensation has been applied instead of 12 considering the age of the victim to be 47 years at the time of road accident. He would further submit that multiplier of 5, which is unknown to the regular formula available for assessment of compensation has been applied instead of 12 considering the age of the victim to be 47 years at the time of road accident. He would further submit that the claimant was teacher at the relevant time and he was earning Rs.12,250/- as per salary slip produced on record and that amount ought to have been taken as income of the claimant. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has also not granted compensation under the head of medical expenses though medical bills are also placed on record. He would further submit that the compensation under the head of attendant charges to the tune of Rs.5000/- and transportation charges of Rs.2000/- are also on the lower side. 4.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru prays to allow this appeal and to enhance the compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood appearing for the respondent insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant to Rs.2000/- in view of the fact that the claimant was working as Teacher at the relevant point of time and his income post accident continued as his work was continued and looking to that aspect, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.2000/-, which he should earn post retirement and applied multiplier of 5. Thus, he submits that it is a fit case which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. 5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood prays to dismiss the First Appeal. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the R & P. 7. On an unfortunate day, the appellant was standing and chit chatting on the bank of the road at near Delvada Primary School, Kalri-Modhera Road on 17-Jun-2001 at around 12:00 noon while the one Mr. Chimanlal Manordas Patel along with Mr. Dashrathbhai Patel while proceeding on a scooter, saw the appellant and therefore halted for a while to chit chat with the appellant, at that time one matador bearing registration no. Chimanlal Manordas Patel along with Mr. Dashrathbhai Patel while proceeding on a scooter, saw the appellant and therefore halted for a while to chit chat with the appellant, at that time one matador bearing registration no. GJ- 3-X-1214 came from Becharaji being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in an excessive speed, dashed with the appellant as well as the Chimanlal Manordas Patel and in the result, the appellant received multiple injuries as well as fractures of Tibia Fibula of bones on the left leg. Thereafter, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana and thereafter, he was shifted to Private Hospital, where he has taken treatment as indoor patient. He was twice under the knife for the treatment of the injuries received from the road accident. According to the medical certificate produced on record, he has received following injuries: 8. The physical disability assessed by the doctor was to the tune of 32% for a particular limb as per the certificate issued at Exh.46. To prove the medical certificate produced at Exh.46, Dr.Kamlesh Gujjar has entered into the witness box at Exh.45 and admitted that disability assessed by him for a particular limb is 32% and can be considered as half of body as a whole. The learned Tribunal taking up the physical impairment and functional disability to the tune of 16% and income of the claimant post retirement at Rs.2000/- has decided the amount of compensation and applying multiplier of 5. The learned Tribunal has also assessed the compensation under the other heads and in total Rs.76,200/- has been assessed and granted by the learned Tribunal. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru mainly argued on the ground that there is no logic on application of multiplier 5 and taking up income of Rs.2000/- being the retirement income of the claimant when he has suffered disability during his work tenure and which has adversely impact on working capacity of the claimant and his potentiality to earn more has been deprived of due to the injury received by the claimant out of the road accident. The salary of the claimant at the relevant time was more than Rs.12000/-. The salary of the claimant at the relevant time was more than Rs.12000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant has suffered 16% disability and his functional loss capacity to earn the amount is reduced on account of fractures of Tibia Fibula of bones, an amount of Rs.10,000/- should be taken for calculation of functional loss of amenities and regular method being sound and logical should be applied for multiplier in the case on hand. 10. Determining the exact compensation by the Court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect calculation of compensation is hardly possible, more particularly, in a claim of the injury. In H.West & Son Ltd. Vs. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (England), it is observed that “money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered.” The principle consistently followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims and attempt is made that the victim has to be placed in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. This general principles have been settled and reiterated in several decisions [See: Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 ]. 11. In Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968, the Hon’ble Apex Court on the principle of just compensation for granting compensation in a case of injury, in para 31 and 32 held as under:- “31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victims death. 32. This Court has emphasised time and again that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.” 12. One more decision can be pressed into service in case of Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another, (2017) 3 SCC 351, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with precise aspect of assessing quantum of permanent disability. In that case, the victim was aged about 30 years, working as a chartered accountant for various institutions for which he was paid professional fees. The injuries suffered by him resulted in severe impairment of movement; as he had problems in climbing stairs etc. The Hon’ble Apex Court enhanced the compensation in that case observing the proper manner to calculate the extent of disability on applying multiplier and held that no departure from the multiplier method on the ground of just compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of award. The multiplier system is, thus, based on the doctrine of equity, equality and necessity. A departure therefrom is to be done only in rare and exceptional cases. Relevant paras 11 to 16 reads thus:- “11. We may observe at the outset that it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. A departure therefrom is to be done only in rare and exceptional cases. Relevant paras 11 to 16 reads thus:- “11. We may observe at the outset that it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. Recognition to this principle was given for the first time in the year 1966 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Subhagwanti & Ors., (1966) 3 SCR 649 Again, in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 64 , the Court referred to an English decision while emphasising the import of this principle in the following manner: " 4. A method of assessing damages, usually followed in England, as appears from Mallet v. McMonagle 1969 ACJ 312 (HL. England), is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to "arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual ‘dependency' by a number of ‘year's purchase' that is the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand..." 12. While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be. In injury cases, the description of the nature of injury and the permanent disablement are the relevant factors and it has to be seen as to what would be the impact of such injury/disablement on the earning capacity of the injured. In injury cases, the description of the nature of injury and the permanent disablement are the relevant factors and it has to be seen as to what would be the impact of such injury/disablement on the earning capacity of the injured. This Court, in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 justified the application of multiplier method in the following manner: "13. It was rightly clarified that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ) envisaged payment of ‘just' compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country." The multiplier system is, thus, based on the doctrine of equity, equality and necessity. A departure therefrom is to be done only in rare and exceptional cases. 13. In the last few years, law in this aspect has been straightened by this Court by removing certain cobwebs that had been created because of some divergent views on certain aspects. It is not even necessary to refer to all these cases. We find that the principle of determination of compensation in the case of permanent/partial disablement has been exhaustively dealt with after referring to the relevant case law on the subject in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors. 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 571 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 in the following words: "Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability 8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation." 14. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, the MACT approached the issue in right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, the MACT approached the issue in right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of the MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by the MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., 2010(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (2010) 10 SCC 341 : "9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. 10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases-and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation-is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand." 15. In that case, after following the judgment in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Court chose to apply multiplier of 18 keeping in view the age of the victim, who as 25 years at the time of the accident. 16. In the instant case, the MACT had quantified the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000, i.e. Rs.1,20,000 per annum. Going by the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, multiplier of 17 would be admissible. 16. In the instant case, the MACT had quantified the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000, i.e. Rs.1,20,000 per annum. Going by the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, multiplier of 17 would be admissible. Keeping in view that the permanent disability is 70%, the compensation under this head would be worked out at Rs.14,28,000. The MACT had awarded compensation of Rs.70,000 for permanent disability, which stands enhanced to Rs.14,28,000. For mental and physical agony and frustration and disappointment towards life, the MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000, which we enhance to Rs.1,30,000. The appellant shall also be entitled to the interest, as awarded by the High Court, as well as costs of this appeal. The amount shall be paid to the appellant within two months after deducting the payments already made. 13. In the present case, it is hotly argued by learned advocate appearing for the insurance company that the claimant was working as a Teacher and due to the injury, he has suffered no financial loss as due to injury sustained from road accident, his income is not stopped and therefore, compensation cannot be granted or the loss of future income or prospects. In this regard, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in case of Akhilesh Chandran Vs. Sabu Verghese rendered in MACA No.3599 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dinesh Singh Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Limited, 2014 (9) SCC 241 , more particularly para 10 thereof and the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in case of Robin Babu V. Kunjappan, 2015(4) KHC 91 , held that legal multiplier method should be adopted to calculate compensation considering the income of the claimant, which he was deriving at the time of First Appeal. 14. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Karthik Subramanian Versus B.Sarath Babu & Anr., 2021 (2) ApexCJ(SC) 470, where the income of the victim of the road accident continued after the road accident, in order to assess appropriate compensation, stress to apply multiplier method for granting future prospect and advancement in life and career as well as reduction in the work power of the claimant by adopting 50% of the amount which the claimant was earning at the time of road accident and apply regular multiplier. Relevant para 4 and 5 reads thus:- “4. The judgment took into consideration the earlier judgments including in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande - (2017) 3 SCC 351. The latter judgment had opined that multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. The present case being one of permanent disability of 40 per cent, it has been urged that the same principle should be applied in the present case while in fact nothing has been granted on account of future prospects. 5. In our view, this issue is no more res integra in view of Sandeep Khanduja's case (supra) and Erudhaya Priya's case (supra) opining that multiplier method has to be applied for future prospects and advancement in life and career. Thus, the same principle would have to apply and learned counsel for insurance Company cannot seriously contend to the contrary.” 15. As per certificate at Exh.22 produced by the Principal, Aditya Vidhyalay, the appellant claimant was the Assistant Teacher in Aditya Vidhyalaya at the relevant time and was earning Rs.12,250/-. In cross examination at Exh.20, he has admitted that his salary has been reduced due to injuries he has received from the road accident. He has also got the increment regularly. Looking to the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to assess Rs.6000/- p.m. considering 50% rise in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , as income of the claimant as a base to calculate compensation for loss of amenities, 16% disabilities has been admitted by both the parties. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , as income of the claimant as a base to calculate compensation for loss of amenities, 16% disabilities has been admitted by both the parties. Considering the unchallenged medical certificate placed on record, it indicates that at the time of road accident, the claimant was 48 years old and therefore, I believe that the claimant was 48 years of age at the time of road accident and therefore, 25% rise has been given towards loss of future prospect and multiplier of 13 should be applied. Towards medical expenses, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.40,000/-. However, reason best known to the learned Tribunal, it has left out bill of Rs.7260/-. So, it is earmark and the total amount comes to Rs.47,260/-. For compensation under pain, shock and suffering, Rs.10,000/- has been granted by the learned Tribunal, which is maintained. Compensation under the head of attendant and transportation charges are assessed to Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/-, in both, Rs.6000/- has been granted. So, recalculation of total compensation are as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future loss of income 1,87,200/- (Rs.6000/- x 16% disability = 960 x 12 x 13 = 1,49,760 + 25% rise Pain, shock and suffering 10,000/- Transportation charges 6000/- Medical expenses 47,260/- Special diet, attendant charges, 6,000/- Total… 2,56,460/- Less : Amount which is already awarded 76,200/- Additional amount which is awarded 1,80,260/- 16. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,80,260/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 17. The argument of learned advocate appearing for the insurance company to accept multiplier of 5 does not sound to be good in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Puttamma Versus K.L.Narayana Reddy, 2013 (15) SCC 45 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court disapproved the prospect of applying split multiplier in routine course and directed that multiplier should be applied as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121 , confirmed by three Judges Bench in case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. V/s. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013)9 SCC 65 . V/s. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013)9 SCC 65 . Thus, any departure from there is not permissible except in case of having specific reason and evidence on record. In the present case, there is no reason or evidence on record to deviate from multiplier method devised by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) (supra) and confirmed by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari (supra) and later affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 18. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 18.1 The present appeal is partly allowed. 18.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.1,80,260/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 18.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 18.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 18.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.