INJ'HEJjIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBIl-ASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) :fc^ anw .g;ilt»»l MISC. APPEALraNO. 72009 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Bv Leaal Representatives Hukum Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Udla Ram; [since dead]; by Legal Representatives. •*':..-•" ,"-•1. •••"* t I-l-fs'1 n^,-"'•"'. ^:<'yl '\,i?»A!A:' ^^"- .,^u' y o°\--\ \.^^ 1- smt- Keshari Sahu, W/o. late Hukum Lal Sahu; aged abut 35 ^e^-^ w ^ ^(^•HT^n^ years; 2. Kumari Deeksha Sahu, D/o. Late Hukum Lal Sahu; age 12 years'Minor"' , , 3. Surya Kant Sahu, S/o. Late Hukym Lal Sahu; age 10 years 'Minor"; 4. Himanshu Sahu, S/o. Late Hukum Lal Sahu; age 8 years "Minor". No.2, 3 & 4 minors by natural guardian mother Smt. Keshari Sahu, appellant No.l; all resident of Village Gidhva; Post Uparvaah; Police Station Ghumka; Tahsil & District Rjnandgaon ;(C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS 1. Rajesh Sahu, S/o. Jagdish; aged about 36 years; resident of Village Baigatola, Police Station Somni, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. Jagdish Ram Sahu, S/o. Birju Sahu; resident of M.I.G. 56 Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.). 3. Oriental Insurance Company, Branch ; Malviya Nagar, Drug (C.G.), Policy No.2007/2200 dated26.5.06 to25.5.07. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OFTHE.MOTOR VEHICLE ACT_1988, K.~'-" 1 HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISG^ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fCi N0. 683 OF 2009 &NT/ CLAIMANT BY LEGAL REPRESENTATTVES Hukuui Lal Saliu, S/o Slm Udla Ram (sm.ce deceased) by legal rcDr'esenta.tives Siiit. Kcslisri Saliu Hiidl oth^crs. Versus Rajesli Saliu aiid o'diers. RESPOI®ENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS 'T^ U' ^ B A ^ *y ^TTh'l 'U ^ ^'lT^fc ^?t ^^^^^^"A^d^^T^T ^t ^f^ i^^^^ ^^trv^ffl TlAfrf^^Hi.4^^. USifKK.iSEVi'i'Jlv i'l' Bench:Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi SB Hon'ble Shri G. Miahafuddin, JJ. Preseut: Suri R.N. <Jha, counsel for f[~ie appeuants. Sl'iri ATIJI Qula.ti, counscl QU foelislf o.f Sliri Aivlud Dubey, courisel for respondent No. 1. None for resDOiid.ent No.2 tliousli served. Slu'i Marush Upauhyaya, coiiiisel for' Respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed oa 22nd day ofJuly, 2011) rei l.iu. yyaaus|,:J. Tliis appeal has been ffled against fiie inipugaed order dated 25-02-2009 passed by Audiuonal Motor' Accident Clakus Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Rajnaiiugaon (for short tlie Tribunal) ii-i Claim Case No.43/2009 by flie appellaj.its, disuiisslng fuc claiiu petition on uj.e ground tliat since tfae itijuf'ed/claimant has uled 1'iis legal heirs have no right to suustitutioii as claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case ai'e fbat on 06-02-2007 at about 7-30 P.M., clairnant Hukuni Lal Saliu (hereiaafter ii'efen'cu to as ^he clalmant^ was gouig on liis motor-cycle to Gidhva. On fhe way, bctwecn Soiiuii Baigatola to Navagaon Road, one Jeep bearuig regisu'ation No. C.G. 07/ZA 0988-ueuig driven by respondent No.l (Rajesh ^ "t'? Sahu) in a rash and negligent maruier dashed flic clalmant, as a result of wliich the claimant sustaiaed >*--«- f^..—--, »- -•* --').- ---^ i--_-^ - mr s^*. ^-? 4."!- uijuries on rus ngij.T leg ana aDove Knee. 'rne repon 01 uie incident was given to fhe Police Station Soiuiii. 3. The injured/clairuant (Hiikuiu Lal Sahu) had filed a petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Veliicles Act (for short tl-ie Act"; before fl-ie Tribunal claiming total amount of compensation of Rs.8,54,900/- for fue injury sustained by liim ia the accident. 4. Duruig the pendency of flie clauii petition, the sole uiJLucd/claiiiiant dieu. Therefore, the legal heirs of the lujured/claunant moved an application for substitution but fiie learned Tribunal rejected tlie sauie as not maintaiaable and fui'ther fhat tlie clalai petition flled by the lajui'ed/claimant was not Stirvived aiiy more after Izis death. Beiiig aggi'ieved, fhe legal heirs of uie deceased ha.ve filed the uistaiit appeal. 5. ui fact, ftiere was aucg'ation on behalf of the legal heirs of tlie ueceased/fhe present appellau.ts that uie deafh was as a result of fhe injuries caused to tlie injured In fuc motor accident and liis treatment was contliiueu. ^That is why, tiiey wanted to auieiiu the claim petition accorulngiy, but flie Claims Tribunal r-efused to accept fhe subnilssion and rejected ftie application and flius dismissed fhe claku petition as abated. 6. It is true fhat in ordinary way tf tl'ie mjuf'ed person Gles a claim petition for conipensatlon/daiaages due to permaiient disabUIty aiid duruig tiie pendency of the claiai petition, he dies, the claini petiUon does not sui'vive any more aiiu the saiae is to be abated on fiie death of fhe clairnaiit and would not sui'vive to his legal heii's. The full Beiicli of Mauliya Pradesli Higli COLU'L iti Smt. Bhagu/ttti Bcd dnd aiufther vs.'Bablu dnd others; reporled ui AIR •Y ^ ,s 2007 MP 38, has held fhat a claim for personal injury would not survive to liis legal r'epissentatives, except as regards tfae claim for pecuriiary loss to the estate of the ciaunaiiL. 7. The deflnition of legal representative has been given ui Section 2 sub-section (11) of CPC which is reproduced as unaer: 2(11). "Legal representative nieaiis a per'son who in law represents the estate of a deceased per-son, and includes any person who interiueddles with tue estate of fhe deceased aiid where a party sues'or is sued in a r'epresentative character the person on whom uie estate devolves on flie deafh of uie party so suing or sued. 8. According to above quoteu defuution, the terui 1s not oiily confuied to legal heirs but also to the competent to L.uierit tlie property of the deceased but he shoT.ud repr'esent tue estate 01 uie deceased. 9. iii Llie case of CusAoifian of Branches of Banco National Ultra.inszn.no vs. Ndlini Bcd. Naique, reporled iti 1989 Supp <2j SCC 273, Hon"ole Apex Court has held m par'as 4 and 5 as under: 4. Aiter heaTiu.g learued couusel for tb.e partles, we ar1e of opiuiou. tiiat tb.e learued Judi.cial Coiituussloner couuuitteu serlous error of law in . settLiig aside the oiuer of tue tiJLal Judge. Legal Repiesentative" as defkied in CivU Procedure Code wluch was adialttedly appUeable to tue proceediu.gs iii the suitj Bieaiis a. peisou who lu law represeuts the estate of a deceased pei'sou, aiid includes auy person who iiitcixueddles witli the estate of the deceased aiid. where a paily sues or is used lii a repl'eseiitauve-'diai'a.cter uie pex'sou 011 wlioiu. the est&te devolves ou the death of tlxe psu-ty so suiug or sued. Tlxe d-efu'u.tion is iuclusive ID. cliars.eter and its scope 1s wide, It is not confuied to legal heirs oiily iiistea.d it stipula.tes a pei'son wlio iuay or luay not be heir, coxapeteut to Inlieri.t tb.e property of th.e deceased but he should rcpreseut the estate of tiie deceased person. It iacludcs heu^ as well as persous who represent tJue estate cven wiUiout titic eitlier as executors or adiQlriistratois iu possessloii of the esta.te of tue deceasefi. AIl sueh. persous would be covered uy the expr^ssloii legal represeutau.ve". If fuere are uiauy heirs, fuose iu possession bona fide, wifh.out Uiere beiag auy fiaud or coUusiou, are also entlfled to repiesent tuc estatc of thc deceased. In the iiistajit case it is uot disputed that under fbe Poi'tuguese Law of liilieritaiiee whlcli wa.s appllcable to Goa a.1 the relevant tiiae tvlrs. Naluii Bai had acquu'ed Meeira ri^b-ts" accoiu.iiig to whicb. she had. acqu.ii'ed ixalf share iu fhe estate left by the deceased Vuiaique Naique aud the rem.aining hatf sbare was iulieritcu. by sons aiid daughtei's of fhe deceased wlio were suibsequenUy brought on record. On the adiultted facts Mrs. Naliiii Bai. tiiei'efore represeiited fh.e esta.te of thc dcceased Viualque Nalq^ue. Ouce Liie nanie of ?vu~s. Naliui Bai was brought on record wlfbln uitic aad uie application for settuig aside. aoateiiient was aUowed by tlie u'ial Judge, fhe suit could proeeed ou nierits aiid the uiere fact that tb.e i'eiiiaio.iQ.g legal represeAtatives were brouglit ojii record at a subsequeut stage could iiot reuder tu-e sult defective. The Custodioji ofthe appeUa-iit BaDje had no kiiowledge that fhere were other legal x'epreseutativcs of deceased defciidajit aloug wiui Mrs. Naliui Bai. He had filed aiB.davit that on. ixiakuig diUgeiit and bona u.de uiquiiy, ue had coBie to know fhat Naluu Bai was tlie sole legal represeuta.tive but later ou tlie acq'ulred. luiowledge '•V-. t3 that tlie deceased had left four sons and two daughters as legal repiesentatives, aloug wlth Mi's. Nalini Bai, flierefoiie, he jnade auotiier appUcation for brltigiug theni on rccond. The trial Judge accepted fhe testuuony of tlie Custodiai'i., aud placing reliauce on the decisioii ofAndlira Pradesh Hlgli Coui't iu Mufifaefn VenJccttct/'Ufnciiyycui u. M. Mwuie,miia, reported m AIR 1963 AP40G :(1963) l Aiidli WR 338, lie allowed tb.e substituuoii appUca.tion. ^iie triSLi court coxQ.inltted no error in law, liistead lie applled cornect prlu.cipley of law. 5. In Dctya Rci/n u. Shyam Stiftdccn, reporteu ui (1965) I SCR 231 : AIR 19G5 SC 1049, tliis Coui-t recogiiised tue priiiciple of represeuta.tiou of the estate by soiiie heii's, where the defeiidaut died duriiig Uie peudeuey of llie suit to enforc-e clalm agaiiiSi iiKu aiia aii uie IICITS ai'e 1101 Drougnx 011 record witlilii tmie. Tliis COLU'I lield tuat if Qftcr Doua ixae uiQu.uy, sonic^ DUI IIOT &ii uie ue.irSj 01 a deceased defendaiit, are brought oa. record tlie lieii's so brought 011 record represeiit the eutii'c estate of ti.ie deceased a-iid the decision of the coui't iu tbe abseiice of fi"aud or colluslou blads eveii tliosc wlj.0 &i'"e uot uroug'Iit ou r^cox'd as well s.y uiose wiio ai'e uiipiie'acieci a-s legyu. lepr^seuiSLUves ox the deceaseu defendaut. In N.S. MohS. SiildRum. ». N.C. Sohd. Isnwit, reported lu (196GJ 1 SCR .937: AIR 1966 SC 792, tl-us Court rejected tlie coiiteiitiou that ia a siut to eii&rce a iiiortgage iiistituted after the deatli of a Muslim, if all tlic heit's of the deceased were not iiupleaded iu tbe sait aiid a decree was obtsiued, aiid iii executioii the property was soldj tlie auctioii pux'cliaser could liave tltle only to uie exteut of the iiiterest of th-e Iieirs wlio were iaipleaded, aud he could liave no tltle to Uj.e ititeiest of fhose Ixelis wlio had uiot beeu iiii-pleaded to tiie sU.it. Tlie Court lield, Uiat uiose »/ o who were ItCtpleaded as pai'ly to fuc suit in place of tlie deceased defendaiit reprcsented tbie eiitii'e estate as th.cy had share io. the pi'opei'ly and siiice they jiad been ibrouglit on record. the deci'ee was biiidin.g ou tb.e eutlre esta.ie. 10. Section 166 (1) of fhe Act provides fuat uii application for compensation arisu'ig out of aii accideut of tlie nature specilied in suo-section (1) of Section 165 may be made by any agent duly aufiiorised by flie person uijured or all or any of the legal representatives of flie deceased, as the case raay be. In view of sub-section (1) of Section 166, if the legal representatives of the deceased wanted to substltute fheinselves in place of fhe deceased to pl'ove that uie death of tlie deceased was as a r'esult of uijuries, an opportuniiy sliould have been given to tiiei'n to pf'ove the same. 11. Havuig regai'd to fiie above legal position, we find that tlie deceased, who was an uijiu'ed/clakQant had spent expenses for getting liis u'eatment, which 1s certauily a 'pecuaiaiy loss to the estate of fiie clalmant and as such that would form part of tlie estate of flie clalmant for wl'iich liis legal represeiitatives would be entitied to get tiic same. Therefore, m oui' opiaion, ia any case, tlie legal heii's of tlic •deceased would be entitled to get tfae amount equaUy to fhe pecunlary loss to thc estate of the uijured/clau'nant who died dui'iiig the pendency of fhe claica petltlon under Section 166 of Q-ie Act. 12. In view of tlie above, we ai'e of the opiiiion that flie matter requires reconsiderauon at the end of flie Tribunal. Therefore, we aliow flus appeal, set aside uie unpugiicd order aad remit the ruatter back to the Triburial for decision a&'esh. 13. The Tribunal first of aU allow flie substitution application and (he legal heu's shaU be substituted on record. Thereafter, fhe parties shall be allowed to aaiend flie pleadings, adduce furtiier evidence, file the documents or get the documents veriiied etc. 14. Besides fhis, fhe substltution of fhe legal heirs of flie uijured/claimant was necessary in view of tiie fact that fhe lujured who had becoiae deceased durliig the pendency of the clairn petition got 'pecuriiary loss and as a result of tlie accident and tuc legal heirs coulu claim for 'pecuniaiy loss' to the estate of fhe deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal shaU conduct an enquu'y as provided under fhe provisions of Sections 168 aiid 169 ofthe Act aiid Rule 226 of tl-ie C.G. Motor VeMcle Rules, 1994. Thereafter, a decision shall be taken afresh as early as possible. 15. The i^cords of the Tribunal shall be sent back without any fui'ther delay. It is pointed out that fhe iuipugned order was passed by uie Fast Tr'ack Court, actliig as MACT. In this regard, learned District Judge is also a Prlncipal MACT, he shatl receive fhe same or shau ti'ansfer to any ouier M.A.C.T. 16. The parties shall appear before tlie Claims Triouiial on 24-08-2011. 17. No order as to costs. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- .... G.Mtobaiuddto 3ud&e fl^ir^^^':^"""""'""^^7 tiCWWi^fe.- ~^~^^.:^^F ^.^~-