HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (SB: Hon'bleShri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar) n/lisc. Appeal No. 40 of 2005 Appellants 1. Om Prakash Agrawal, son of late Jyotiswarupa, aged about 45 years. 2. Suresh Kumar Agrawal, son of late Jyotiswarupa, aged about 37 years. (Both are residents of Rajpur, in front of Post Office, Tahsil : Rajpur, District Surguja -CG). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Collector, Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. 2. Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, Distt: Garhwa, Jharkhand. (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) Respondents Present: Ms. Neha Verma, counsel for the appellants. Noneforthe respondents. ORDER (17-6-2011) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challe'nging the impugned order dated 5-11-2004 passed by Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) (for short, "the Tribunal"), Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 10/2002, whereby the application filed by the non- applicants/respondent was allowed and the claim case preferred by the present appellants was dismissed. 8 Brief facts of the case, in short, are that the father of the present appellants namely Jyoti Swaroop filed an application for compensation against the respondents No. 1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal, Ambikapur vide claim case No. 10/2002. During pendency of the claim case, injured/daimant died on 30-7-2004. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has moved an application before the learned Tribunal on 14-10-2004 for dismissal of the case on the ground that since the injured/claimant died, during the pendency of the case whowas only entitled to get the.compensation, therefore, now it cannot be survived. Per contra, the present appellants moved an application for substitution oftheir names as legal representatives of the deceased/claimant on the ground that even after the death of the original claimant, they are entitled to get the compensation for lossof estate. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the claim case on the ground that the same is not maintainable because it cannot be survived after the deathof injured claimant. Ms. Neha Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and law. The Tribunal failed to consider the loss of the present appellants which they incurred in the medical treatment of the daimant Jyoti Swaroop. Since, the present appellants are legal heirs of the deceased Jyoti Swaroop, they are entitled to get compensation in the head of loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has not considered the above facts, therefore, the impugned order "?-.•-.*.,<;. ^^ \ if1.1... .SSb "?y'fy •^^.^. "•^^' ,^: passed by the Tribunal be set aside and direct the learned Tribunal to substitute the name of the present appellants in placed of the original claimant and to decide the case on merit. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6, The learned Tribunal after taking intoconsideration all the aspects of the matter, has passed the impugned order and by allowing the application filed by the non-applicants/respondents dismissed the claim case preferred by the present appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased/claimant on the ground that the same is not maintainable because now it cannot be survived after the death of the original claimant/injured. 7. Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Bhagwati Baiand another vs. Bablu and others (AIR 2007 IVIP38) held that a claim for personal injury filed under Sectjon 166 of the Act, would abate on the death of the claimant and would not survive to his representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the claimant, 8. In view of the above and considering all the facts of the case, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rang .-JS.aJj L-