Supreme Court Grants 40% Future Prospects to Overseas Self‑Employed Victim, Enhances MACT Award to Rs.1.60 Crore

A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by claimants challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's award of compensation in a motor accident death claim, particularly contending that the High Court erred in refusing to add the component of "future prospects" while computing dependency for a self‑employed deceased who was a United States national.

The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the insurer to deposit an additional sum of Rs.42,95,080 with interest, holding that the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi applied to the case of a self‑employed person even if he earned abroad. The Supreme Court observed that for a deceased aged 31 years the benefit of 40% addition towards future prospects was warranted and that the multiplier of 16 applied by the courts below was correct. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also quoted Pranay Sethi, noting that “a person who is self‑employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities,” and applied that principle to enhance the award.

Background The dispute arose from a fatal road accident on August 31, 2007 near Karnal in which Rajinder Singh Mihnas, aged 31, died. The claimants — his wife, daughter and son — filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The MACT assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.5,000 per month and awarded compensation of Rs.7,80,000. On appeal the High Court accepted documentary evidence including a permanent resident card and salary certificate indicating earnings in the United States, and assessed the monthly income at Rs.78,300, awarding total compensation of Rs.1,17,20,200.

The claimants challenged in the Supreme Court that the High Court failed to grant the "future prospects" addition as articulated in Pranay Sethi. The insurer argued that foreign documents were not conclusively authenticated and that the High Court’s income estimate was excessive. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s appreciation of evidence on income to be justified and declined to disturb the income assessment; it noted that no cross‑objection had been filed by the insurer. The Court held that the ratio of Pranay Sethi applied even where the deceased was self‑employed abroad and that, in absence of specific material to determine future prospects in the foreign jurisdiction, the standardised percentages laid down by the Constitution Bench were to be applied.

Applying those principles, the Court retained the annualized income base, applied a 40% addition for future prospects, maintained the multiplier of 16, and revised conventional heads (loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses) as per Pranay Sethi. The Court therefore enhanced the award to Rs.1,60,15,280 and directed that the respondent insurance company deposit the additional amount of Rs.42,95,080 with interest at 6% within four weeks with the Tribunal; the claimants could withdraw after verification. The appeal was allowed to that limited extent; other contentions, including the multiplier, were rejected.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.820/2019 Case Title: Kulwinder Kaur & Ors. v. Parshant Sharma & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocate(s) appearing not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocate(s) appearing not indicated in the judgment