Direct evidence of permanent employment justifies awarding fifty percent future prospects in motor accident claims.

Two software engineers, Raghavi and Divyadharshini, died in a road accident at 2:30 a.m. when a Tipper Lorry (TN 19 AJ 4818) rammed their car from behind near Kancheepuram

Their families filed separate claim petitions: MCOP No. 82 of 2020 in Chennai (for Raghavi) and MCOP No. 234 of 2020 in Salem (for Divyadharshini)

The Insurance Company challenged the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunals, while the claimants in the Salem case sought enhancement of the award

The Company argued the Tipper Lorry was not involved, and contested the inclusion of "future prospects" and secondary income sources

1. Whether the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 19 AJ 4818 was responsible for the accident through rash and negligent driving

2. Whether the income earned by the deceased from a private foundation (run by her father) could be included in the dependency calculation

3. Whether the employment of the deceased in a private software firm was "permanent" in nature to warrant 50% future prospects

4. Whether a major sister of the deceased can be considered a legal dependent

The court primarily applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding compensation for road accidents

It relied on the landmark precedent National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017), which established the criteria for "Future Prospects" (granting 50% for permanent jobs under age 40) and fixed standard amounts for loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses

The court also applied the principles of dependency, distinguishing between legal heirs and actual financial dependents

The Court affirmed the Tipper Lorry's liability, noting that the driver’s testimony in the Chennai proceedings was a manufactured afterthought to circumvent the Salem Tribunal's findings

Regarding Raghavi’s income, the Court rejected claims of additional earnings from her father's foundation due to a lack of independent evidence or tax returns

However, it scrutinized the employment contract (Ex.P19) from Hexaware Technologies; the presence of a retirement age (58) and maternity benefits proved the employment was permanent, justifying an increase in future prospects from 40% to 50%

The Court excluded the sister’s claim for dependency, noting she was a major and theoretically dependent on her father, not her deceased sibling

For Divyadharshini, the Court used the last drawn pay but declined to deduct heavy income tax, viewing it as a beneficial social measure for parents who lost young daughters

In CMA No. 287 of 2023, the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 16,97,000 to Rs. 31,31,750

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amounts at 7.5% interest within six weeks

The sister’s claim for dependency was dismissed. CMA No. 136/2026 was partly allowed, CMA No. 102/2024 dismissed, and CMA No. 287/2023 allowed