HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1944 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 28.07.2009, passed in O.P.No.1576 of 2007 on the file of the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 07.05.2007 at about 9.00 P.M., against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.TN-04-Q-6858.
After contest, the claim-petition was allowed and compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- was awarded to the claimant, payable by both the respondents jointly and severally.
Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him, the claimant approached this Court by way of filing the present appeal.
2
During pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant/claimant died and as such appellants 2 and 3 were impleaded as the legal representatives of the claimant.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties besides going through the record.
It may be mentioned here that the injured/claimant Sk.Basheer has died during pendency of the appeal. Now the question arises as to whether any cause of action survives to his legal heirs. The answer to this question is in negative.
In Kannamma v. Deputy General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans.Corpn.1 a Full Bench of High Court of Karnataka dealing with such type of question as to whether in case of claim for compensation for personal injuries and towards expenses etc., on death of claimant, the claim-petition abates. The question was answered observing that whether the injured/claimant dies as a consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, then, his legal representatives can prosecute the claim relates to loss to the estate of the deceased. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has died as a result of suffering injuries in the accident.
In Smt. Ram Ashari and others v. HRTC and another2 this type of question cropped up before Himachal Pradesh High Court, 1 1991 ACJ 707 2 (2005) 3 RCR (Civil) 128 3 which was answered observing that in case where appellant was injured in an accident, on his death during pendency of appeal for enhancement of compensation, the appeal abates, since the appeal which was filed for personal injuries cannot be continued by his legal representatives. It was further observed that an action in torts for claim of compensation for damages on account of injuries suffered by an injured as a right personal to the injured and this right cannot be continued by legal heirs.
It is settled law that claim for permanent injury would abate on the death of original claimant. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on a reference in the case of Bhagwati Bai v. Bablu3 held as under:-
"Thus in case of personal injury not resulted in death the legal representative of such person, who was injured and who died subsequently not on account of accident but for some other reason cannot maintain an application for compensation for personal injury sustained in an accident under sub-Section (1) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of various High Courts, recently, the Punjab Haryana High Court in Sukhdev Singh through his L.Rs v. Ramesh Kumar (FAO-131-2012 (O&M), dt. 14.03.2019) held that the cause of action does not survive to his legal heirs since the injured/claimant died during pendency of the appeal. 3 2007 ACJ 682 4 In the instant case also, the injured/claimant has died during pendency of the appeal, hence the appeal for enhancement of claim awarded for permanent injury filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, would also abate on the death of claimant and would not survive to his legal representatives. Even otherwise, on merits also, I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate and no reason is there to enhance it. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 10.11.2021 gkv/Gsn 5