IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance companies are liable to pay interest on compensation amounts, including future prospects, to ensure claimants are not unjustly deprived of timely financial relief.

JUDGMENT :

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.

1. Questioning the validity and legality of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No. 3751/2015 dated 17.06.2019, these two appeals were filed.

2. Disputing its liability to pay the compensation, the insurance company against whom liability to the extent of 95% was fastened has preferred appeal vide MFA No. 511/2020. On the other hand, seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants preferred a Cross Appeal vide MFA CROB No. 40/2022. As both the appeals thus arose from the same order, they are disposed of through this common judgment.

3. Heard Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No. 511/2020 i.e. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel who represented the claimants in both the appeals as well as Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel who represented United India Insurance Company Limited, which is arrayed as 6th respondent in MFA No. 511/2020 and 4th respondent in MFA CROB No. 40/2022.

4. The matrix of the case as projected by the claimants is that on 18.11.2014 the deceased Supreeth (hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) was travelling in a car bearing Registration No. KA-53 MB-7335 along with his friends. The car was proceeding on National Highway from Krishnagiri side towards Bengaluru. When the car reached near Chinnur Sangeetha Dhaba Hotel, Hosur Road, at about 4.00 a.m. a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01 C-1773 which was proceeding in front of the car suddenly turned to the right side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. No signal or indication was given by the driver of the lorry. Due to such sudden turning, the car dashed against the lorry. The deceased who was present in the car sustained severe head injury and other injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment. Despite of giving best treatment and all efforts to save his life, he succumbed to injuries in the year 2018.

5. It is borne by record that the deceased while undergoing treatment filed petition claiming compensation and after his death his legal representatives came on record.

6. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs. 51,57,000/- as compensation under the following heads:

7. Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for the Insurance Company against whom 95% of the liability was fastened made vigorous submission with regard to the merits of the matter and contended that the liability fixed to the extent of 95% is highly unjustifiable. Learned counsel projected three grounds disputing his liability.

The first ground is that the entire negligence lies on part of the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling at the relevant time and therefore, the owner and the insurer of the car are alone liable to pay compensation, if any, to the claimants.

The second ground urged is that the amount awarded as compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant.

The third ground is that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest over the amount that is fixed toward loss of future prospects.

8. Coming to the first ground that is in respect of the alleged negligence on part of the driver of the car, Sri. Ashok N. Patil submitted that there was head on collusion between the lorry and the car which were involved in the accident. Learned counsel submits that in case the driver of the car maintained sufficient and proper distance between his vehicle and the lorry which was proceeding ahead, the accident might not have occurred and thus, entire negligence lies on part of the driver of the car. Learned counsel took aid