Motor accident compensation cannot be enhanced on speculative future loss; reasonable interest rate upheld on discretionary assessment.

Further enhancement of motor accident compensation was refused because the claimant produced no evidence that he owned or could afford a car, and the request rested on speculation that permanent disability would require a driver and increase future earnings. The courts below had already assessed compensation liberally on the available material, so no additional award was justified on a conjectural basis. The rate of interest on the compensation was also left undisturbed because interest is compensatory in nature and the High Court's discretion was not shown to be unreasonable, especially having regard to the prevailing bank rate and the circumstances of the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claimant was entitled to further enhancement of compensation on the footing that permanent disability required him to engage a driver and affected his future earning prospects; (ii) Whether the rate of interest awarded on the compensation deserved interference.

Issue (i): Whether the claimant was entitled to further enhancement of compensation on the footing that permanent disability required him to engage a driver and affected his future earning prospects.

Analysis: The claim for additional compensation was declined because no evidence showed that the claimant owned or had purchased a car, or that he could afford one. He was riding a scooter at the time of the accident, and the courts below had already assessed compensation liberally on the available material. The record did not justify a further addition on the speculative premise of future engagement of a driver or of a higher future income from professional advancement.

Conclusion: Further enhancement of compensation was not warranted and the claimant's request was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the rate of interest awarded on the compensation deserved interference.

Analysis: Interest in motor accident compensation is compensatory in nature and must be reasonable, depending on the facts of the case. The award of interest at the rate fixed by the High Court was found to be within a proper exercise of discretion, particularly in light of the prevailing bank rate and the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The rate of interest did not call for interference and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No further relief was justified, and the compensation and interest awarded by the High Court were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A further increase in motor accident compensation must rest on proved loss and not on speculative assumptions, and the rate of interest on such compensation will be interfered with only if the discretion exercised is shown to be unreasonable.

---