KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for appellant-claimants and Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, Advocate for respondent- insurance company. None for the owner.

The parties are referred to as claimants and respondents hereinafter.

2. This appeal, at the behest of claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.05.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIth Additional District Judge, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 349 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs.7,15,300/- with interest at the rate of 9%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered Rs.19,022/- per month but has deducted Rs.8,000/- towards family pension thereby granting the datum figure as Rs.11,022/- per month which is unjust, as the amount receivable under the family pension cannot be deducted is the mandate of Apex Court in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1998) AIR SC 3191. It is further submitted that the future income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least 40% as he had permanent job and he was 55 years of age and was Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. The deduction of 1/3rd of amount was also bad as he was survived by widow, two sons and one daughter. It is next submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased as he had a permanent job.

5. It is submitted that the deceased being 55 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 8 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. He has further relied on judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) ACJ 1298 for applying proper multiplier for deduction and for future prospects and for loss of estate, love and affection.

6. It is submitted by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company that the income which has been assessed by the Tribunal cannot be more than that which is assessed by the Tribunal as the widow is receiving pension, the children were not dependent on him and they were all major, the multiplier would be 8 or 9 as he was 55 years 3 months and 16 days and, therefore, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), he has to consider in the age group of 56-60. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to been added as per the judgment in Pranay Setthi (Supra). It has not been shown by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents that the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents.

7. Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that the amount under the head of future income and interest requires to be granted as per Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and the interest cannot be paid as prayed for namely 9% and it should be at 7% on the enhanced amount and the amount which has already been awarded.

8. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the amount of pension cannot be deducted has to be accepted in light of authoritative pronouncement of this High Court in Geeta Singh (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2016) 4 TAC 337 (All) and the decision in Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others., (2014) ACJ 1430 Hence the said amount cannot be deduc