IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (WCA) No.592 of 2003. Reserved on:23.04.2007. Decided on:May 07, 2007 Smt.Prabhi Devi & Ors. …..Appellants. VERSUS Niranjan Singh & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants: Mr.M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For Respondents No.1&2: Mr.Vinod Gupta, vice counsel. For Respondent No.3: Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Lachhu Ram against the order dated 14.5.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi in Claim Petition No.9 of 1999 by returning finding that petition is not maintainable. 2. The brief facts are that Lachhu Ram, original petitioner, filed claim petition on the ground that he sustained injuries in an accident which took place on 11.8.1998 involving scooter No.HP-33- 4276. It was his case that the scooter was being driven by respondents No.2 in rash and negligent manner and respondent No.1 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes …2… being the owner and respondent No.3 being the Insurance Company were liable to pay the compensation. 3. The respondents contested the petition and when the case was fixed for evidence of respondent No.3, the Tribunal was informed that the petitioner had died. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed by the heirs of original claimant. The reply to the application was also filed by the respondents. It has come in evidence that Lachhu Ram died on 4.7.2002. The objection of the respondents to the application was that Lachhu Ram had not died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the accident. There is no averment to this effect in the application nor there is any proof and, therefore, right to continue the claim petition does not survive to the legal representatives. The learned Tribunal by impugned order has held that petition is not maintainable in view of death of original claimant. In these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have a right to continue the claim petition originally filed by their predecessor Lachhu Ram at least to claim amount which Lachhu Ram had spent on his treatment. According to him, the amount spent by Lachhu Ram on his treatment is nothing but part of his estate and appellants are entitled to claim that amount from the respondents. He has relied Harkirat Kaur and others versus H.R.T.C., Latest HLJ …3… (HP) 110. The learned Single Judge in Para-6 of the judgment has held:- “It is well settled law that action in torts for claim of compensation for damages on account of injuries suffered by an injured is a right personal to the injured. This right cannot be continued by the legal heirs or the legal representative. It is no doubt true that the legal heirs or the legal representatives continue the proceedings in so far as they relate to the loss to the estate such as medical expenses, amount spent on treatment etc. However, the claim with regard to pain and suffering, future loss of income and such related matters is an action which is personal to the injured alone and cannot be continued after his death unless it is proved that the death is the result of the injuries suffered in the accident.” 6. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order. According to them, the claim petition was filed by Lachhu Ram in his own right for claiming compensation for injuries allegedly sustained by him in the accident. The claim put forward by him was his personal claim. The right to sue does not survive to the appellants after his death. 7. In the present case there is nothing on record that Lachhu Ram has died due to the injuries sustained by him in the …4… alleged accident. The bald statement of the appellants to this effect is not sufficient. No medical evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this fact. It is not believable that in normal course the original claimant had died due to the injuries sustained by him about three years ago prior to his death. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that at least to the extent of expenses incurred by deceased Lachhu Ram on his treatment the appellants are entitled to continue the claim petition has no force. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Lachhu Ram had spent some amount on his treatment but Lachhu Ram while appearing as his own witness before the Tribunal had proved no expenses allegedly incurred on his treatment, therefore, as a matter of fact in the present case there is no proof of medical expenses on the treatment of Lachhu Ram. No purpose will be served by permitting the appellants to continue the claim petition for claiming alleged medical expenses on the treatment of Lachhu Ram which in fact are none. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order does not require any interference. 8. No other point was urged. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 14.5.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi is upheld with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) May 07, 2007 Judge. (soni)