Future prospects must be awarded in injury cases despite lack of proof regarding occupation or specific earnings.

On September 9, 2012, Neeraj Pandey and his wife Shailly Pandey sustained injuries (31% and 45% permanent locomotor impairment, respectively) when their motorcycle was struck by an offending Maruti Car (DL 1RT 0061) driven rashly.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 11,42,718 to Neeraj and Rs. 7,66,002 to Shailly on January 24, 2017.

The Insurance Company appealed, challenging the finding of negligence, the 12% interest rate, the denial of "recovery rights" regarding an allegedly invalid driving license, and the calculation of quantum.

1. Whether the MACT failed to properly establish negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver.

2. Whether the interest rate of 12% per annum awarded by the MACT was excessive.

3. Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights against the owner/driver due to an invalid driving license.

4. Whether the claimants are entitled to future prospects in the calculation of compensation.

The court applied the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" regarding negligence based on site plans and unrebutted testimony.

Regarding quantum, it followed Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to mandate a 40% addition for "future prospects" for victims aged below 40.

For the interest rate, it relied on Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001), holding that interest should align with prevailing RBI fixed deposit rates (9% in 2012).

Recovery rights were governed by the principle that a non-converted/invalidated license constitutes a breach of policy terms.

The Court confirmed negligence by analyzing the site plan, which showed the offending vehicle swerved across lanes to hit multiple victims.

It found that the MACT erred in omitting "future prospects," noting that Neeraj (32) and Shailly (29) were entitled to a 40% hike under Pranay Sethi guidelines.

Regarding the driving license, the Court accepted evidence (Ex. R3W1/1-4) from the Transport Department of Nagaland proving the license was not converted into a smart card as required by law, rendering it invalid; since this evidence was unrebutted, the insurer was entitled to recovery rights.

The interest rate was corrected from 12% to 9% to match 2012 bank rates.

The interest rate was reduced to 9% per annum.

The compensation was enhanced—Neeraj Pandey’s award was increased to Rs. 14,96,174 and Shailly Pandey’s to Rs. 9,74,764 due to the inclusion of future prospects.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with the Tribunal within six weeks.