JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Mollah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No. 2795/2008, by which the appellant has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 20,53,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs fifty three thousand) only to the respondents/claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till it realization.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 20.03.2008 at about 10.50 P.M. while the claimant, Mukut Kalita, was proceeding in a motorcycle along with his friend and when reached near Sadilapur, suddenly a vehicle bearing No. AS-01-AC-1678 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked that aforesaid motorcycle. As a result of which he along with his friend sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately brought to GMCH for treatment, but due to his serious condition he was shifted to GNRC and took treatment there till 12.08.2008 and till date his treatment was going on. Thereafter, a claim petition being MAC Case No. 2795/2008 was preferred before the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup, (Metro), Guwahati. During pendency of the trial, the claimant died due to accidental injuries. Thereafter, his parents amended the claim-petition and impleaded themselves as the claimants in place of their deceased son. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No. 2795/2008, directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 20,53,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs fifty three thousand) only to the respondents/claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till it realization.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company is not raising any dispute regarding the other part of the award that has been made by the learned Tribunal below. However, Mr. Mollah, learned counsel submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest on future prospects. In support of such submission, Mr. Mollah relies on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in MAC App. No. 378/2017 vide order dated 01.10.2019 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein-below:

“Another ground of challenge to the impugned judgment is that the learned Tribunal had awarded interest on future prospects, which could not be done. In the case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania vs. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, 2018 (0) Supreme (Gau) 966 and Nasima Begum vs. Keramat Ali, 2019 (0) Supreme (Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. Though no reasons have been enunciated in the above judgments, the reasons for the same seems to be due to the fact that future prospects is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects, at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the Award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occ