y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C.No.134of2008 APPELLANTS Smt. Anusuiya Bai & others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Naryan Lal & another ORDER For consideration I o. 08.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta j Sd/- Chief Justice Post for: | ? .08.2011 Sd/. ^.4ga, Judgg ^s ^ -^ \s.. («uiiI"CiTiS33jj=,,g-gp. ^'^' -a ~v/ ^ ••••f •~-;..l.:^/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo.134of2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Anusuiya Bai W/o Hiru Ram Sahu, aged about 48 years. 2. Chhabi Lal Sahu S/o Hiru Ram Sahu, aged about 24 years. 3. Ku. K^vita D/o Hiru Ram Sahu, aged about ISyears. 4. Nohar Sahu S/o Hiru Ram Sahu,aged about 15 years. 5. Sunil Kumar Sahu, S/o Hiru Ram Sahu, aged about 13 years. No. 4 & 5 both are minors through their mother and natural guardian mother Smt. AnusuiyaBai. All are resident of village Khaprikala, Post Office Rain Kathera, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS 1. Naryan Lal Agrawal S/o late Radheshyam Agrawal, R/o Ganjline, Ward No. 3, Rajnandgaon (CG). .*••• 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kamtee Line, Rajnandgaon. (APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988) (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l Present : Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No. 2. ORDER (Deliveredon |^ /08/2011) Per: N.K. Aaarwal. J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compen^tion awarded by the Ist Additional Motor Accident N ••-••it' tt: • ^o (USLuaoueyua jo^ uoipe pssneo 'iesdde io Aouepysd Suynp Luey njiH IUBLUIBIO p ijtesp jeye U9A9 : ijLuqns p|no stue||edde QU^ JQJ BuueeddB issunoo paujesi 'BLUJBLIQ »A1-143, •83B|d S!L< ui petntssqns eja/n 'peseeoep 341 ^o usjpiiyo pue MOpiM SJE oyM 'stueiiedde tusssjd syi pue QOOZ'ZO'£0 uo psip uuey njt|-| 'ieedde ^o Aouspued Buyna 'ynoo siyi Bjo^aq |eadde ue psiie^sjd uiey miH IUBIUIBIO 'ieunqui BLJI Aq pepje/rte uoiiesusdujoo jo lunoLue 941 4)iM psysitessip pue psAByBBe Buieg •tueiuAed jenioe sii ||ii uoiieoiidde p siep 941 LUOJI uinuue jsd tuaojsd g @ issjsiui yiiM BUO|B -/QOt?' l-fr' l 'sy jo Luns |et0t pepJB B pue psssssse :uoi}esu8dLuoo p )ueuuAed joi e|qei| Auediuoo eouejnsui :iu8piooe pies ayi ui seunfui eidjiinui peuietsns niies iuey njiH lUBiujejo yoiijM ^o tinsaj e se 9|]jnt psu.in} ^90-02-90-00 'ON uoitBJtSjBsj Buueeq >|on-ii : piay 'saiyed sq^ Aq speuj suoissiiuqns pue peoeid leusieiu 'p8| eouBpiAS 941 p AUitmos 9so|o e uo 'ieunqui 941 'tusujAed |enpe s}i ||t} uoiieoiidde p s)ep a^\ ujoji ainuue jed lusojsd 9 @ isejstui qijAA Duo|e -/oot'" l.fr't 'sy p uoiiesuediuoo [Etoi e pepJBMe |eunqpi psujee) ey^ "900ZZO'£0 p3|ep )U8piooe jo^ouj eqi ui aiiq Aq psuietsns ssunfui 8L|l JQ1 (,PV AM 84t, P04S joi) Q861, 'PV ssioiqsA JOtoiAI 341 ^o v-£9l uoi.toag Jspun uoitBoi.idde BUIIU Aq niieg Luey mii-i Aq peuiiBio -/O00'se'91..'sy p uonesuedLuoosq) isuieBe sy '900Z/fr£'"N sseo ujieio ui passed '^.OOZ'OI" !.£PS^P PJBME spiA (<|Bunqyi BLJ), yoLts joi) uoeBpueufey 'ieunqyi siureio ^ '•-t- •lE „.-?->. ^sss:;s. ':^. '^^•'"'' '';<s;a2sS.'i:i 8. t compensationwould survive to his legal representatives and appeal is maintainable. He would further submit the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side and therefore the same may be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit : on the basis of prinfciple .contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the death of claimant Hiru Ram who had suffered the personal injury inthe accident dated 03.02.2006, the !egal representatives/appellants woutd 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 submlt that adequate amount of compensation on all heads has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement In the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned award. As per under Section 166 (1)(a) ofthe ^4V Act: 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 compensation. ^: s'. *1: 9. Section 306 of the Indian 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 his death, survive to his executors or administrators except causes ofaction for personal injuries not causing the death of the party. Thus, under Section 306 ofthe Indian Succession Act, 1925, the executors or administrators 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 but only causes personal injury to him, his executors or administrators will not have a right to prosecute or continue to prosecute an applicatton for compensation for - personal injury suffered by the party. 10. The full bench of MP High Court in case of Smt. Bhagwatt Bai and Anr. v. Bablu and Ors, reported in AIR 2007 MP 38, after considering the judgment of Supreme Court passed in case of Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gapslankutty Nair, reported in AIR 1986 SC 411, has he!d: a claim for personal injury fited 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. 11. This Court in case of Binduram Tandi and others v. Sardar Sukhpal Singh & others (MA No. 85 of 2005, decided on 26.07.201-1), reiying upon judgmerit of Full Bench of MP High \' ? ,^-^r°scat8k;. "<-<s^^ ,^ssfe>> ''.;» 8 & .-?5?-B>. *'• ^ ^S^^i-'-I^i^; v^ '•» ^sf' Court, has held : the appeai preferred for enhancement of compensation by deceased claimant would abate on his death and would not survive to his legai representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased. 12. 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 Hiru Ram. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses & special diet; Rs. 6000/- towards loss of earning capacity during treatment and Rs.50,400/- for loss of earning due to disability, 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 Tribunat towards pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased Hiru Ram. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.KAgarwal Judge .Sahu .», s: \'.