,'^'J^. '"'fe- ..^-^. "^> .y~ ~"^ '^ jj g^^.sf"--^ g ^^^'•^^'^^"~ ^'i -f^ ^ '-^Sv^' 'y ^ ^^ y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 85 of 2005 APPELLANTS Binduram Tandi & others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Sardar Sukhpal Slngh & others ORDER For consideration 2.<r -07-2011 Sd/- ", N.K. Agrawai f Judge | Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta 3 ^_^^^(^_. Sd/- Chief Justice Postfor:^!.,-07-2011 Sd/- Juage -2-r-07-2011 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.8Sof200S APPELLANTS 5. Binduram Tandi S/o. Bhaglrathi Tahdi, aged about 55 years (Father of deceased) Smt. Phoolmani Tandi W/o. Binduram Tandi, Age 50 years (Mother of deceased) Kumari Sheela Tandi, D/o. BInduram Tandi, age 23 yrs. (Younger sister of Sunny Vikas Tandi, S/o. Blnduram Tandi, age 17 years 0?o""9®r Brother of deceased) Visha! Tandi, S/o. • Binduram Tandi, age 15 years. C/ounger Brother of RESPONDENTS ORIGINAL NON- APPLICANTS Versus 1. Sardar Sukhpal Slngh S/o Not known R/o 527, Madan Mahat Jabalpur (M.P.) (Owner of Truck No. MP-20-G-8613) 2. Sardar Hardeep Singh S/o Not known R/o527,MadanMahal, Jabatpur (M.P.) (DriverofTruckNo. MP-20-G-8613) 3. The Oriental tnsurance Company Ltd. Through : Senior DiYisjQnai Manager Divisional Offte No.1, Second Ffoor, Madina Building, Jait Road Raipur (C.G.) (tnsurer of Truck No. MP-20-G-8613) Cover Note No. IRO/B 112481 Comprehensive Insurance Period : 28.03.2003 to 27.03.2004. iVliscellaneous appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotDr VehiciesAct1988 D.B: Hon'ble Shri RajeevGupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwai. *!. Present : Shri S.S. Rajput, counset for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S.Patel, counse! for respondent No. 3. OR D E R (Delivered on.24.07.2011) Per N.K. Aaarwal, J This is ciaimants' appeat for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunai, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated ^). 10.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 01/2004. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- claimed by Santosh Tandi as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.87,417/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of apptication till its payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the driver of offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. M. P.20 G-8613; ciaimant Santosh Tandi sustained injuries in the said accident; and awarded a sum of Rs.87,4171- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatlsfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, claimant Santosh Tandi preferred an appeal before this Court. During pendency of appeal, Santosh Tandi died on 3.9.2005 and the present appellants, who are father, mother, younger sister and younger brothers of the deceased were substttuted in his place. 5. The question therefore arises for determination of this Court is whether an appeal filed by the injured-claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would abate on the death ofthe claimant or would survive to hts legal representatives. 6. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appetiant wouid submit : even after death of claimant Santosh Tandi during pendency of appeai, cause of action for enhancement of compensation would survive to his legal representatives and appeal is maintainable. He would further submit: the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on tower side. 7. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit: on the basis of principle contained in Section 306 of the Indian Successton Act, 1925 on the death of claimant Santosh Tandi who had suffered the personal tnjury in the accident, the legal representatives/appellants would be entitled to claim compensation only on the head of the loss of estate and rest of the claims of such persons, who had suffered injuries, would abate. He would further submit : adequate amount of compensation on all heads has been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including Impugned award. 9. AsperunderSection 166(1 )(a)oftheMotorVehiclesAct: an application for compensation arising out of an accident of nature specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury. According to the above provision; only a person who has sustained the injury, can file an application for compens'ation. 10. The Section 306 of the tndian Succession Act inter alla provides that all rights to prosecute any action or special proceeding existing in favour of a person at the time of hls death, survive to his executors or administrators except causes of action for personal injuries not causing the death of the party. Thus, under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the executors or admlnistrators of a deceased will have a right to prosecute or continue any action or special proceeding existing in favour of the deceased at the time of his death, except causes of action for personal injury not causing death of the party. Therefore, where the accident does not cause death of a party 4 but only causes personal injuryto him, his executors or administrators will not have a right to prosecute or continue to prosecute an application for compensation for personal injury suffered by the party. 11. The ful! bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Smt. Bhagwatl Bal and Anr. v. Bablu and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 38 after considering the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Melepurath Sankunnl Ezhuthassan v. ThekiWI Gapa/anAutfyWafrreported in AIR 1986 SC 411 has held: a claim for personal injury fiied under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act would abate on the death of the claimant and would not survive to his legal representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the claimant. 12. We are in respectful agreement with the above ratio of law laid down by the full bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in ease referred hereinabove and in our opinion also the appeal preferred for enhancement of compensation by Santosh Tandi would abate on his death and would not survive to his legal representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate ofthe deceased. 13. Now coming to the question whether or not the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate amount of compensation towards pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased/claimant Santosh Tandi. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.43,167/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,000/- for special diet; Rs.2,000/- for attendant and Rs.2,250/- towards loss of income during deceased/claimant Santosh Tandi remained out of job which in our opinion is just and proper compensation on above heads and, therefore, there is no scope of enhancement of compensation in the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pecunlary loss to the estate of the deceased Santosh Tandi. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the misc. appeal being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. -—^———^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. AgrawaS Judge