JUDGMENT : PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 29.06.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1670 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Full Additional Charge), Thanjavur and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Insurance Company challenges the award of compensation of Rs.29,05,800/- for the death of one Ravi in a road accident that occurred on 17.10.2019. 2. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that since the deceased was a daily wage earner, the Tribunal was not right in adopting the future prospects at 40% following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi]. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had only fixed the percentage of future prospects in respect of permanent employees and professionals. There is no indication as to whether the future prospects theory could be applied to daily wage earners also. We are unable to accept the restrictive interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court states that the Tribunals are bound to award certain percentage towards future prospects, the same will apply to daily wage earners across the board, without any distinction. It is common knowledge, a maid servant employed in household today is earning more than a maid servant who worked 10 years ago. Therefore, it could be stated with reasonable certainty that all daily wage earners or permanent employees or businessman are entitled for addition towards future prospects irrespective of the nature of the employment or business. In Pranay Sethi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that it would apply even to a self-employed person. Hence, we are unable to countenance the arguments of the counsel for the appellant on this aspect. It is therefore clear that the daily wage earners should also be treated on par with the self-employed persons in respect of adoption of future prospects. Hence, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. 5. Hence, we are unable to countenance the arguments of the counsel for the appellant on this aspect. It is therefore clear that the daily wage earners should also be treated on par with the self-employed persons in respect of adoption of future prospects. Hence, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. 5. The appellant/Insurance company shall deposit the award amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.