(1.) THE case that required straight forward adjudication.
(2.) THE insurance company has been grossly unfair to force an adjudication to be made when the scales proposed are as per the established principles of the Supreme Court decisions. It can be noticed that there is a general upward trend in maintaining compensation amounts by the supreme court and the suggestions have been that courts shall not be niggardly in awarding compensation. Not to be equated as a lottery, when the scales proposed are even less than what the Supreme Court has suggested (in Vimal Kanwar v Kishore Dhan (2013) 7 SCC 476 the suggestion was ? 2 lacs for loss of love and affection and ? 1 lac for loss of consortium), the insurance company must act with grace and not waste the time of the court and defy the court to pass any order it pleased.
(3.) IN the proposal, the appellants have sought for interest at 12% citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttamma and others v K L Naravana Reddy in 2014(1) RCR (civil) 443. The case was of the year 1998 and if the compensation would have settled immediately after filing the petition or anytime soon thereafter, the claimants would have had the benefit of the amount for all these years. A proper rate of interest depending on the rate which the banks provide for the number of years of deposit between the date of petition to the date when award is passed could be the rate of interest. If the award is delayed by an uncooperative attitude of the insurer or through deliberately false and evasive denials of the insurer, as I have found in this case, interest could be at 12% p.a.