JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This is an appeal filed by the claimants challenging dismissal of their claim petition by the MACT., XX Additional Judge and XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC No.4103/2008. 2. The claim petition would disclose that, on 02.03.2008, the deceased along with his friends were traveling in a Maruthi car which was driven by one Usman. At about 4.30 am., when the car reached the EPT garden, Channapatna town, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-09-V-8086 suddenly stopped without any signal or warning light. Due to this, the driver of the car lost control and dashed against the lorry. As a result of this impact, the son of the claimants suffered grievous injuries and died at Sagar Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. The claimants therefore, filed a claim petition against the owner and the insurer of the lorry in question, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. 3. The insurer objected to the claim petition and denied the occurrence of the accident and alternatively contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. It also contended that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owner of the car and the insurer were not impleaded in the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked, while, the insurer did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal though held that the deceased died in the road accident, it held that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal thus, held that the claimants ought to have impleaded the insurer and the owner of the car as parties in the claim petition and since the claimants had not arrayed the owner and the insurer of the car as the parties, the Tribunal thought it fit to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The claimants contended that in the criminal proceedings lodged against the driver of the lorry, it was specifically mentioned that the driver of the lorry applied brake suddenly to avoid a cat which was crossing the road. 5. The claimants contended that in the criminal proceedings lodged against the driver of the lorry, it was specifically mentioned that the driver of the lorry applied brake suddenly to avoid a cat which was crossing the road. He also brought to my notice that the deceased was traveling in a car at about 4.30 am., on Bengaluru-Mysuru highway and therefore, both, the car and the lorry were traveling at a high speed and the driver of the car could not have anticipated the lorry applying the brake suddenly, that too, without giving any indication. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that since the brake lights did not turn on, the driver of the car could not have any premonition about the driver of the lorry applying the brake suddenly. Therefore, he contended, that the driver of the lorry was negligent and therefore, the claim petition was perfectly maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that the driver of the car did not maintain sufficient distance from the lorry as contemplated under the Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which mandates that the driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop . The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., through Regional Manager and Others, (2018) AIR SC 2118 , to contend that whenever there is a violation of Regulation 23, there can be no claim for compensation on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in front. 8. As rightly contended by the counsel for the claimants, the car and the lorry were moving in the same direction on Bengaluru-Mysuru highway at about 4.30 am. It is but natural that the vehicles could be traveling atleast at 80 Kms., per hour which is the permitted speed on highway. In such circumstances, even if the driver of the car had maintained sufficient distance, it would be well nigh be impossible to bring the car to stop, as reaction time and the braking distance may not be sufficient to avoid a collision. In such circumstances, even if the driver of the car had maintained sufficient distance, it would be well nigh be impossible to bring the car to stop, as reaction time and the braking distance may not be sufficient to avoid a collision. Even in the present case too, the claimants had categorically mentioned that the lorry stopped suddenly without giving any indication and that the brake indicators were not working. In that view of the matter, it can be held that the driver of the lorry was negligent in keeping the indicator lights in proper working condition. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nishan Singh was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, since the road width was only 14 feet and it was impossible to comprehend that the vehicle could be cruising at a high speed. Therefore, the Judgment of the Apex Court may not apply to this case. 9. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the accident was due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 10. It is noticed that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of the accident and he was working at a mobile service centre. Even if the notional income of the deceased is taken at a sum of Rs.4,500/-, he would be entitled to future prospects in life of 40% of his notional income. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount in Rupees Loss of dependency along with loss of future prospects at 40% after deducting 50% towards personal expenses Rs.3150 x 12 x18 6,80,400 Loss of love and affection 25,000 Funeral and other obsequies 25,000 Total 7,30,400 11. The insurer is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.7,30,400/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization. 12. The insurer is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.