Telangana High Court
Sk. Basheer vs M/S. Leap International Pvt. ... on 10 November, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
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.
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,
1991 ACJ 707
(2005) 3 RCR (Civil) 128
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.
2007 ACJ 682
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
