The cause of action for damages for personal injury does not survive the death of the injured as per the Legal Representatives' suits Act and Indian Succession Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the Judgment and award dated 7th July 1978 passed by the District Judge and Member, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-1, Bangalore in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 99 of 1975 on his file, awarding compensation of Rs, 15,430-03 along with interest and costs in favour of the injured claimant.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimant that he is a building contractor and that he earns annually not less than rs. 16, 368. On 26-11-1974 at about 1-30 p. m. he was going on his scooter bearing Registration No. MYB 3689 from east to west along N. S. lyengar street, on the left side of the road. A car bearing Registration No. MYM 5530 came from north to south driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter. The scooter-rider was thrown to a distance of about 8 or 10 feet on the left side. He sustained fracture of his left leg and one of his arms and other parts of the body sustained injury. Scooter was damaged. One Kempanna, who was near by, removed him in an auto-rickshaw to the Victoria Hospital. He remained an in-patient in Victoria hospital for a long time. On these averments, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from the respondents.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2, by their written statement, resisted the claim. According to them, it was the petitioner who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. The car was going on its proper side and with moderate speed. It was not the car that hit the scooter. It was vice versa. As a result of the scooter hitting against the car, the car was damaged. They denied their liability. The third respondent. Insurance company, contended similarly.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal raised the following issues as arising for its consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due to the negligence of the driver of Car MYM 5530 ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amoqnt and from whom?

( 5 ) DURING hearing, the claimant examined himself and five other witnesses on his behalf and got marked Exts. P-1 to P-53. As against that, the respondents examined two witnesses, including the driver of the car, and got marked one document, namely, the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Criminal court against the driver of the car.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and, in that view, it awarded compensation of Rs. 15,430-03 in all to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant instituted the present appeal before this Court claiming enhanced compensation.

( 7 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, however, the claimant died on 7th July 1978 and a preliminary objection is raised before us submitting that the appeal does not survive the death of the injured claimant as the appeal is for enhanced compensation for personal injuries.

( 8 ) THE point, therefore, that arises for our consideration in this appeal is : "whether the appeal instituted by the injured claimant for enhanced compensation survives his death during the pendency of the appeal ?

( 9 ) ACTIO personalis Moritur cum persona (Personal right of action dies with the person is a maxim in common law in England which is also accepted in India. At common law, in England, if an injury were done either to the person or property of another for which damages only could be recovered in satisfaction, the action died with the person to whom or by whom the wrong was done, As regards all actions essentially based on tort, the principle was inflexibly applied. The origin of this doctrine is lost in antiquity. It is needless to point out that this principle it pernicious in its working. In England, the Law Reforms (miscellaneous) act, 1934, has since abolished it altogether, except for statutory exceptions.

( 10 ) IN India, the first legislation on this subject was enacted in 1855. In the year,