SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.36 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddhant Manral and Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, Advocates for the claimants/ respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Rohit Kumar Gaur, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises from the award dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No.69 of 2022, whereby an aggregate compensation of ₹53,93,600/- was awarded to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, namely, 13.05.2022. 3. The appellant herein, being the Insurance Company, challenges the said award on various grounds, submitting that the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in law and fact, causing substantial miscarriage of justice. It is vehemently contended that the compensation quantum is unjustifiably excessive and exorbitant, warranting judicial intervention. He submits that the learned Tribunal egregiously misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly as regards the computation of compensation including future prospects and consortium, thereby awarding an amount far in excess of what law permits. He argued that the allowance of consortium to the tune of ₹40,000/- per claimant, granted to both claimants herein, is contrary to well-established principles and judicial precedents, which do not envisage multiplicity of such amounts in the absence of express statutory sanction. He contended that interest @6% per annum has been erroneously awarded on the component of future prospects, a head of compensation which is hypothetical and contingent in nature and, hence, no interest is payable on the same as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and judicial pronouncements. He argued that the Tribunal failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and departed from salutary principles of compensatory jurisprudence, rendering the award arbitrary, untenable, and liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent nos.1 & 2 assiduously defended the impugned award. It is submitted that the award is consonant with the settled jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the principles enshrined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and requires no interference. Learned counsel for the respondents relied heavily upon the authoritative and landmark pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court extensively deliberated on the components of compensation in motor accident claims, mandating that claims of consortium, loss of estate, and future prospects must be litigated and adjudicated by the Tribunals in a realistic and just manner, free from arbitrary caps and rigid formulae. The respondents also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, which further elucidated the scope and quantum of consortium claims to be allowed to eligible claimants, unequivocally holding that each claimant has an independent right to consortium compensation, and the quantification thereof is essentially within the Tribunal’s judicial discretion. With regard to the quantum of interest on future prospects, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal’s approach to award interest on the entire compensation, inclusive of future prospects, is supported by judicial precedents and the principle of equitable restitution, aimed at just enrichment of the victims and their dependents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and with due regard to the record, this Court embarks upon an exercise to examine the challenge leveled against the impugned award. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial statute enacted with the noble purpose to provide expeditious and adequate compensation for victims of motor accidents without unnecessary procedural impediments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that the Tribunal must adopt a liberal and purposive construction of the statute to grant just and equitable compensation. The award of ₹40,000/- as consortium to each claimant is well within the judicial standards established by the Supreme Court. The principal rationale behind the award of consortium is recompense for the loss of love, affection, society, and consortium of the deceased due to the accident. The Tribunal’s grant per claimant is thus neither arbitrary nor excessive but is a direct application of established principles of law. 6. Regarding the contention of the appellant that interest on future prospects cannot be awarded, the doctrine emanating from supreme judicial interventions is that future prospects constitute a valid head of compensation, reflecting the notional enhancement in the deceased’s income had the tragic accident not occurred. While the future prospects themselves are hypothetical, the compensation measured thereon becomes a finalized sum upon adjudication. It is also well understood that the award of interest on the entire compensation, including future prospects, serves the purpose of compensating for the delay in payment, and does not contravene the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. To hold otherwise would be to deprive the claimants of the very essence of compensation for the time value of money, running counter to principles of equity and justice. The Tribunal’s award, therefore, embodies a just, equitable, and prudent exercise of discretion, with adherence to statutory commands and judicial precedents, worthy of confirmation. 8. In light of the foregoing discussions and analysis, this Court finds no palpable error warranting interference. The impugned award dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stands affirmed. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed. 10. The statutory amount, if deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment towards the award amount. The balance amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the claimants as per the directions of the Tribunal. (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dd db7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987 446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.31 17:20:52 +05'30'