Supreme Court of India
Kulwinder Kaur vs Parshant Sharma on 8 August, 2025
2025 INSC 950 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.820/2019
KULWINDER KAUR & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARSHANT SHARMA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The appellants-herein are the original claimants, who by filing
the present appeal, have taken exception to the judgment and order
dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in FAO No.6692
of 2010 to the extent that the High Court, even while enhancing the
compensation in respect of accidental death, disregarded the count of
future prospects’ in computing the compensation payable to the
appellants/claimants/heirs.
3.
Signature Not Verified
While noticing the crux of the controversy as above, the basic
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
facts may be stated.
Date: 2025.08.08
18:52:03 IST
Reason:
In an accident which took place on 31.08.2007 at
about 3.00 a.m. in the area of Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal one RajinderPage 1 of 10
Singh Mihnas died, who happened to be the husband of claimant No.1
and father of other claimants who are the daughter and son
respectively. The deceased was travelling in a car bearing registration
No.DL-3C-AP-5711 along with relatives named Devender Singh and
Kamaljeet Kaur going to Hoshiarpur from Delhi. The car was driven by
Devender Singh. The deceased was sitting in the front seat of the car.
A Swaraj Mazda truck bearing registration No.HR-46-A-4816 which was
stated to be driven rashly and negligently, struck with the car. The
accident resulted into death of said Rajinder Singh Mihnas aged 31
years.
3.1 It was the case that the deceased had been working as a driver
and running a Transport company in the name and style of West End
Express Inc. in the United States of America (USA), claiming to be
earning $ 9,600/- equivalent to Rs 4,25,000/- per month in Indian
rupee. The deceased was a U.S. national as was established from the
evidence on record including copy of permanent resident card of USA
(Exb. P-2), copy of passport of the daughter and letter (Exb. P-8) from
the Company that he was employed as owner/operator/driver for the
said West and Express Company earning in dollars. The claimants-
heirs filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
“Tribunal”) applied multiplier of 16 having regard to the age of the
deceased to be 31 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal,
however, on the score of income, took the view that the evidence
produced by the claimants would suggest that the income of the
deceased could not be assessed beyond Rs.5000/- per month. The
deceased was self-employed and it was reasoned by the Tribunal that
Page 2 of 10
there was no material on record to prove as to what was the daily wages
paid in the USA. The Tribunal accordingly taking the income at
Rs.5000/- per month, deducting the personal expenses and applying
the multiplier as above determined the compensation.
3.3. In the final analysis, the Tribunal held that the claimants would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- with interest @ 6%
from the date of filing of the petition till final realization, failing which
the further interest @5% was provided to be payable. The
compensation was calculated on the basis of Rs.60,000/- being the
yearly income minus 1/3rd personal expenses multiplied by a
multiplier, further adding the amounts of Rs.10,000/- each towards
funeral expense, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection as
well as for transportation of dead body and miscellaneous charges,
including Rs.1,00,000/- for travelling expenses from U.S. to India.
3.4. The High Court, in the appeal preferred by the
appellants/claimants, was of the view that in calculating the amount of
compensation, the Tribunal overlooked the documents such as the
income tax record bearing social security number of the deceased as
also the salary certificate exhibit P-8 which indicated the income to be
$2150 per week which was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that
it did not bear the stamp of the Consulate General of India.
3.5. Disagreeing with the rejection of the said document, the High
Court observed that it was clear from the salary certificate, etc. that the
deceased was a driver, his income tax returns showed the social
security number which was verified by the American Embassy. It was
further observed that as per the United States Department of Labour,
Page 3 of 10
Wage and Hour Division, the minimum wages earned by the employee
in U.S. during 8 hours was $ 7.25 per hour and on that basis, if the
8 hours working is taken as a base, any worker who draws $ 58 per day
which would come to $170 per month equivalent to Rs.78,300/- per
month. Taking income to be Rs.78,300/- per month, the High Court
awarded the compensation enhancing the same from Rs.78,300/- per
month to Rs.1,17,20,200/-.
3.6. In the present appeal which is filed by the claimants, the
respondents attempted to submit that the aforesaid assessment by the
High Court to enhance the figure of the income was not justified
inasmuch as the authentication made by the Consulate General by
itself did not suggest that the content of the said document was correct
and acceptable and that it was specifically mentioned that the
Consulate did not accept its responsibility about the content. It was
submitted that the document suggest that the deceased was a driver in
the said West End Express Inc., and was not the owner. By raising these
contentions, it was submitted that taking the earning of the deceased at
$ 2150 per week was exaggerated and that the High Court committed
an error in taking the higher income than adopted by the Trial Court.
3.7. Dealing with the aforesaid aspect at this stage itself, this Court
does not find any substance in the above submission, having gone
through the findings of the High Court. The High Court properly
appreciated and took into account the evidence to arrive at the finding
about income computation. Even otherwise, the present is an appeal
by the claimants. No cross objections are filed by the other side-the
insurer. This Court is inclined to maintain the assessment of income
Page 4 of 10
done by the High Court and the figure arrived at in that respect, as
proper and evidence-based.
4. Adverting to the case and contention of the appellants-herein that
the High Court did not give the benefit of ‘future prospects’ component.
It is the case that the denial of the said benefit by the High Court was
on the basis of the decision of this Court in in Chikkamma and another
v. Parvathama and another1 wherein this Court refused the claim
towards the future prospects’ in respect of self-employed person on
the ground that such issue was discussed by the larger Bench. It was
pointed out that the Constitution Bench Judgment in National
Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, has laid down that addition of
40% of the established income shall have to be counted towards ‘future
prospects’. In addition to calculating the benefit of Pranay Sethi
(supra) in regard to the future prospects’ component, the appellants
also submitted that the multiplier of 17, instead of 16 ought to have been
applied.
5. The multiplier of 16 is correctly applied and the same is in
consonance with what is stated in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the
submission about taking the higher figure of multiplier to 17 is stated
to be rejected. However, as far as the case of the appellants regarding
grant of benefit of future prospects is concerned, the same has merit.
The issue of additional future prospects’ came to be discussed and
delineated by this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) in paragraph 53
onwards, in which the Constitution Bench considered the parameters
1
Civil Appeal No.3409/2017 dated 28.02.2017
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 5 of 10
to be applied towards granting of future prospects’ benefit in case of a
salaried person as also in respect of a person who is self-employed.
5.1. With regard to the conferment of benefit in respect of future
prospects, Pranay Sethi (supra) stated as under.
“… Similarly, 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. To have the perception that he
is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant
is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude
which always intends to live with dynamism and move and
change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that
there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to
the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a
permanent job, yet the said perception does not really
deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can
be some degree of difference as regards the percentage
that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal
representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who
had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or
on a fixed salary.”
(para 57)
5.1.1. The Court explained and observed further:
“But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the
foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to
remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And,
therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test isPage 6 of 10
applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish,
it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have
the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration
the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing
society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the
human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an
addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased
towards future prospects and where the deceased was below
40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.”
(para 57)5.2 While awarding the compensation without applying the future
prospects’ component, the High Court in its impugned judgment
calculated the total compensation to arrive at the figure of
Rs.1,17,20,200/- as per the following.
Heads of claim
Income 78300
Less Deduction (1/3) 58725
(1/4th)
Multiplicand 7,04,700
(annualized by
multiplying 12)
Multiplier 16
Loss of dependence 1,12,75,200/-
Medical Expenses & 110000
Transportation
Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-
@ 1,00,000/- to child &
Rs.50,000 to parents
Loss of estate 10,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 1,17,20,200/-
Page 7 of 10
5.3. When the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) hold the field today,
the law laid down therein has to be applied to give benefit of future
prospects’ to the appellants while determining the compensation. The
rectification in the compensation amount awarded by the High Court
by enhancing the same with inclusion of future prospects’ benefit and
by further applying the principles for amounts awarding under the
conventional heads as per the parameters laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra) is required to be adopted.
5.4. It deserves to be observed at this stage that the deceased was
national of United States. Thus, he belonged to a foreign country and
was found to be self-employed in that country. There will be no
gainsaying that assessing the ‘future prospects’ of a person self-
employed in a foreign country like United States, compared to a person
in this country, would become difficult for the simple reason that the
socio-economic-political conditions in any foreign country would be
different. Even as this Court is not oblivious to the said aspect, in order
to determine the just compensation to a person who died in an accident
occurred in India, the dictum of law in Pranay Sethi (supra) shall have
to be followed and applied specially when no material evidence is
offered to determine the future prospects in the foreign country.
Accordingly, the Court is inclined to extend the benefit of future
prospects’ component for the compensation payable as per the
principles in Pranay Sethi (supra).
5.5. As observed hereinabove, as per the decision in Pranay Sethi
(supra), as the deceased was aged 31 years, 40% addition has to be
made in the established income towards future prospects’. In the
Page 8 of 10
second place, as observed in Pranay Sethi (supra) the reasonable
figures under the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.15,000/- respectively. These figures have to be applied while
coming to the compensation in the said heads.
5.6. The dependence of the deceased are wife, the daughter and the
parents, therefore, for each of them Rs.40,000/- will be the part of
compensation towards loss of consortium amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-.
5.7. Therefore, applying the law in Pranay Sethi (supra) and
extending the benefit of future prospects’ component as also towards
the conventional head, the revised compensation would be as under.
Heads As Revised
Loss of 78,300/-
Dependency 9,13,600/-
9,13,600 x 40%
= (3,75,840)
3,75,840 x 12 =
13,15,440/-
13,15,440 – ¼
(3,28,860) =
9,86,580/-
9,86,580/- x 16
= 1,57,85,280/-
Loss of 1,60,000/-
Consortium
[40,000/- X 4]
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Transportation + NIL
Medical
Expenses
TOTAL 1,60,15,280/-
5.8. The High Court awarded Rs.1,17,20,200/-. The claimants would
be entitled in law to be granted total compensation of Rs.1,60,15,280/-
Page 9 of 10
as per the above calculation along with benefit of future prospects.
Thus, the additional compensation of Rs.42,95,080/- with 6% interest as
originally awarded to be calculated till the date of deposit of the
additional amount, now be payable to the appellants-claimants.
6. In that view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is
partly allowed by granting additional compensation to the claimants as
above to the tune of Rs.42,95,080/- with interest as above. The
respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount of
additional compensation with interest @ 6% within four weeks from
today with the Tribunal, upon which the claimants shall be entitled to
withdraw the same after undergoing the process of verification and
identification before the Tribunal.
7. The present appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms and to
the said extent.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………….., J.
[ K. VINOD CHANDRAN ]
………………………………….., J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2025.
Page 10 of 10