Summary and Analysis of Kulwinder Kaur & Ors. vs Parshant Sharma & Anr

1. Heading of the Judgement:

• Case Name: Kulwinder Kaur & Ors. vs Parshant Sharma & Anr.

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

• Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 820 of 2019

• Judges: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria

• Decision Date: August 08, 2025

• Citation: 2025 INSC 950

2. Relevant Laws and Precedents:

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
  Section 166: Governs claims for compensation in motor accident cases.

• Legal Precedents:
  National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: Sets standards for calculating compensation, including future prospects (40% addition for victims aged <40) and conventional heads (loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc.).

3. Basic Case Details:

• Appellants: Family of Rajinder Singh Mihnas (deceased) – wife, daughter, and parents.

• Respondents: Driver (Parshant Sharma) and Insurer of the truck involved.

• Accident: On 31.08.2007, the deceased (aged 31) died when a rashly driven truck hit his car near Karnal, Haryana.

• Deceased’s Profile:
  U.S. permanent resident (Green Card holder).
  Self-employed driver/owner of "West End Express Inc." in the USA.
  Claimed income: $9,600/month (₹4.25 lakh/month).

• Lower Court Decisions:
  Tribunal (2009): Awarded ₹7.8 lakh (notional income: ₹5,000/month; ignored U.S. income proofs).
  High Court (2017): Enhanced compensation to ₹1.17 crore (income: ₹78,300/month based on U.S. minimum wage).

• Supreme Court Decision:
  Partially allowed the claimants’ appeal.
  Enhanced compensation to ₹1.60 crore (including 40% future prospects).

4. Explanation of the Judgment:

The Supreme Court addressed two critical issues:

I. Validation of U.S. Income:

• Tribunal’s Error: Rejected salary proof (Ex. P-8: $2,150/week) due to lack of Indian Consulate stamp.

• High Court’s Correction: Accepted evidence (U.S. tax returns, wage data) and fixed income at ₹78,300/month (based on U.S. minimum wage: $7.25/hour × 8 hours/day = $58/day ≈ ₹78,300/month).

• Supreme Court’s Confirmation: Upheld the High Court’s income assessment as "evidence-based."

II. Future Prospects for Self-Employed Victims:

• High Court’s Omission: Denied future prospects citing Chikkamma v. Parvathama (which excluded self-employed persons).

• Supreme Court’s Ruling:
  Pranay Sethi applies universally, including self-employed persons and overseas earners.
  40% future prospects mandatory for victims aged <40.
  Reason: "To remain static [in income assessment] is contrary to human dynamism" (¶57, Pranay Sethi).
  Rejected insurer’s argument that U.S. socio-economic conditions alter the calculation.

III. Revised Compensation Breakdown:

1. Loss of Dependency:
   Income: ₹78,300/month
   +40% future prospects: ₹78,300 + ₹31,320 = ₹1,09,620/month
   Annual income: ₹1,09,620 × 12 = ₹13,15,440
   Deduction for personal expenses: 1/4<sup>th</sup> (₹3,28,860) → Annual dependency: ₹9,86,580
   Multiplier (16): ₹9,86,580 × 16 = ₹1.58 crore

2. Conventional Heads (per Pranay Sethi):
   Loss of consortium: ₹40,000 × 4 dependents = ₹1,60,000
   Loss of estate: ₹15,000
   Funeral expenses: ₹15,000

3. Total Compensation: ₹1.60 crore

Key Legal Principles Affirmed:

• Future prospects (40%) apply regardless of employment type (salaried/self-employed) or country of residence.

• Conventional heads (consortium, funeral, estate) must follow Pranay Sethi standards.

• Multiplier based on victim’s age (16 for age 31) is mandatory.

Final Outcome:

• Additional compensation: ₹42.95 lakh (Total: ₹1.60 crore – High Court’s ₹1.17 crore).

• Interest: 6% p.a. from claim filing date till payment.

• Insurer must deposit the amount within 4 weeks.

Significance: The judgment ensures uniform application of Pranay Sethi to global Indian victims and secures fair compensation for self-employed persons.