Future prospects apply when computing motor accident compensation for foreign nationals employed abroad.

On 16.12.1993, passengers travelling in a hired Metador bearing registration No. GJ-7-U-3219 from Khedbrahma to Ambaji sustained fatal injuries when the Metador, driven rashly and at excessive speed, collided with the rear of a stationary GSRTC bus near Ratanpor Patiya on National Highway No. 9.

Naynaben Ashokbhai Patel suffered spinal injuries and died on 23.12.1993, while Yogendrabhai Manubhai Patel also succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the Metador driver 75% negligent and the GSRTC bus driver 25% negligent.

In MACP No. 207 of 1994, it awarded Rs.12,28,100 against a claim of Rs.60,00,000; in MACP No. 208 of 1994, it awarded Rs.3,82,000 against a claim of Rs.5,00,000, both with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimants filed the present appeals seeking enhancement.

The first appeal concerned Naynaben’s income in Sweden, and the second concerned Yogendrabhai’s income as an accountant.

1. Whether the compensation awarded for Naynaben Ashokbhai Patel’s death required enhancement by reassessing her established income, applying future prospects, and adopting the appropriate multiplier.

2. Whether the compensation awarded for Yogendrabhai Manubhai Patel’s death required enhancement by accepting his monthly salary of Rs.3,000, rather than the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs.2,000.

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and medical expenses.

4. What interest and directions concerning liability and disbursement should follow from the enhanced award.

The Court applied the principles governing determination of “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of actual income, deduction for personal expenses, future prospects and the multiplier method.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for adding future prospects and determining compensation under conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104, for the appropriate multiplier and deductions towards personal expenses; and Kulwinder Kaur v. Prashant Sharma, 2025 ACJ 2320, for the principle that future prospects may be considered even where the deceased was a foreign national or was employed abroad.

The Court accepted that income must be assessed on the evidence available, while variable or unproved income cannot automatically be treated as fixed earnings.

In relation to Naynaben, the Court accepted that the salary slips and employer’s certificate established gross earnings substantially higher than 2,000 SEK, but upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 2,000 SEK as the amount actually available for dependency because the deceased was working and residing in Sweden and would necessarily incur expenses for her own upkeep.

However, applying Kulwinder Kaur and Pranay Sethi, it added 40% towards future prospects.

From the resulting annual income of 33,600 SEK, it deducted one-third for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 17 for the deceased’s age of 30, producing a loss of dependency of 3,80,800 SEK, converted at Rs.4.2 per SEK into Rs.15,99,360.

For Yogendrabhai, the Court found the widow’s deposition, the salary certificate and the supporting affidavit sufficient to establish employment and a monthly salary of Rs.3,000.

The fact that the employer had subsequently closed down did not justify rejecting the evidence, particularly since the witness had not been effectively cross-examined on the employment or salary.

The Court therefore added 30% future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14 for age 41, resulting in a loss of dependency of Rs.4,91,400.

It also substituted the Tribunal’s outdated conventional amounts with amounts considered appropriate under Pranay Sethi.

In First Appeal No. 375 of 2011, the total compensation was enhanced to Rs.16,89,060, resulting in an enhancement of Rs.4,60,960. In First Appeal No. 376 of 2011, the total compensation was enhanced to Rs.7,26,300, resulting in an enhancement of Rs.3,44,300.

The Insurance Company and GSRTC were held jointly and severally liable to pay the respective enhanced amounts with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petitions until realisation, within four weeks of receipt of the order, subject to their respective liability as determined by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts after verification and deduction of court fees, if applicable.