Audit Report Alone Is Not Proof of Loss: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects ₹2.54 Crore Insurance Claim Filed by Co-operative Bank for Employee Fraud Divisional Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction to Cancel Sale Permission Once Conveyance Is Complete: Bombay High Court Rules in Landmark Land Transfer Case Once Land Is Vested Under LDP Act, There Is No Lapse, No Going Back: Calcutta High Court Refuses Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 Act Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer Liberty Cannot Override the Horrors of Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Palghar Mob Killing Case Mere Plea of Oral Partition Not Sufficient Without Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court Voluntary Abandonment of Infant Child Constitutes Cruelty; Father Retains Custody: Karnataka High Court Mere Delay Is No Ground To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings When Serious Financial Irregularities Are Alleged: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Charge-Sheet For Fraudulent Medical Claims Employer’s Insurance Cannot Offset Motor Accident Compensation: Delhi High Court Upholds Just Claims of Deceased’s Family Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence—Absence of Dowry Allegation Weakens Prosecution Narrative: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Delay in Impleading Legal Heirs No Ground to Dismiss Entire Revision: Supreme Court Restores Civil Revision, Condemns Overtechnical Approach Generalised Allegations Without Specifics Against In-Laws Are Not Enough To Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Case Conviction for Rape on Promise to Marry Quashed as Couple Marries: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Do Complete Justice Recruitment Process Initiated Under Valid Policy Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Due to Later Change in Committee Composition: Calcutta High Court Conviction for Theft of Public Electricity Infrastructure Upheld; Hostile Witnesses Won’t Dismantle Case Where Recovery Is Proven: Karnataka High Court

“Self-Employed Abroad? Your Future Prospects Still Count” – Supreme Court Boosts Compensation for US-Based Accident Victim’s Family

11 August 2025 1:07 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India sent a powerful message on motor accident compensation. The Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria ruled that “to have the perception that [a self-employed person’s] income is likely to remain static is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude”, and that self-employed persons under 40 – even if working abroad – are entitled to a 40% addition in their income towards future prospects under the Pranay Sethi principle.

A Tragedy with International Dimensions

Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national running a transport business in America, died in a road accident at Karnal, Haryana, in August 2007. His widow, children, and parents claimed he was earning $9,600 per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal slashed this to a mere ₹5,000 per month for want of “proof” of U.S. wages, granting only ₹7,80,000 as compensation.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court corrected this, relying on salary certificates, tax records with a U.S. social security number, and official U.S. wage data to peg his income at ₹78,300 per month. It enhanced the award to ₹1,17,20,200 but refused to add “future prospects” on the ground that he was self-employed.

Supreme Court Restores Justice with Future Prospects

Before the Supreme Court, the claimants argued that the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi had settled the law — self-employed victims below 40 years get a 40% increase in income towards future prospects. The Bench agreed, observing that “not to apply the principle of standardisation… would be unfair and inequitable”, and stressing that human beings are dynamic, striving to improve their earnings over time.

Even while noting that “assessing the ‘future prospects’ of a person self-employed in a foreign country… would become difficult” because socio-economic conditions differ, the Court held that Pranay Sethi’s standardised approach applies unless evidence suggests otherwise.

Conventional Heads Updated, Compensation Soars

The Court revised the compensation under the standard heads — ₹15,000 for loss of estate, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹40,000 per dependent for loss of consortium — and applied the 40% future prospects addition. This pushed the total compensation from ₹1,17,20,200 to a whopping ₹1,60,15,280.

The insurer was directed to pay the additional ₹42,95,080 with 6% interest within four weeks, to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification before the Tribunal.

By extending Pranay Sethi’s future prospects principle to a U.S.-based self-employed victim, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that families of Indians working abroad are entitled to realistic, forward-looking compensation. In the Court’s words, “to remain oblivious to the marrows of ground reality” would be unjust — whether the deceased worked in Karnal or California.

Date of Decision: August 8, 2025

Latest Legal News