CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: 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