The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, the claims for loss of estate caused were available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
This decision was made while partly allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had granted compensation from the date of the claim application until its realization under Section 166 of the MV Act.
Brief Facts:
The original claimant met with an accident on 29.07.2001 when the Minibus in which he was traveling turned turtle, resulting in grievous injuries all over his body. On account of the accident, the injured Shekhar filed a claim case under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal vide impugned award dated 16.03.2005 allowed the claim application while granting compensation, which was enhanced by a bench of this Court. The order of enhancement was challenged in review, which was allowed. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the lower side and needs interference. He argued that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Disability Certificate only shows an assessment of the injury, and except for the right leg, the other parts of the body are normal. He argued that since the sole appellant died on 30.10.2015 and no legal representatives were substituted in his place when the appeal was decided on 31.07.2017, the claim for personal injury filed under Section 166 of the MV Act would abate on the death of the original claimant and would not survive to his legal representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the claimant.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and fair compensation to the victim or motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Court/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident get just compensation.
The Court observed that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company that the claim for personal injury filed under Section 166 of the MV Act would abate on the death of the original claimant and would not survive to his legal representatives is liable to be and is hereby rejected. The Court said that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, the claims for loss of estate caused were available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that the appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- in place of Rs.58,486/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Shekhar Kumar Thakur & Ors. vs. Manoj Kumar Sahu & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Case No.: MA No. 769 of 2005
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. B. P. Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dashrath Gupta
Picture Source :
