K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the owner of a Tempo Van bearing Registration No. GTS 7035, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the claimants are entitled to enforce the award passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal (II), Amreli for the injuries caused to the original claimant in an accident which took place on 24. 5. 1984.

( 2 ) CLAIM petition was preferred by Mohanbhai Khodabhai claiming a total amount of Rs. 70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which took place on 24. 5. 1984 at Padar, village Rajeshtali.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the claim petition, original claimant died on 27. 10. 1988. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein preferred an application before the Tribunal for impleading them and to prosecute the claim petition, claiming that they are the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Mohanbhai Khodabhai. They were accordingly brought on record and the Tribunal proceeded with the claim petition.

( 4 ) ON facts, Tribunal had found that the original claimant Mohanbhai had sustained fracture of simple nature on the right wrist joint, but his left leg had to be amputated as a result of the injuries caused in the accused. It was also noticed that the claimant was an old man aged 72 years and had suffered mental pain and agony during old age and was also hospitalised. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded. For medical expense an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded. An amount of Rs. 4,800/- was awarded for loss of earning and total amount which the deceased could have been awarded was assessed at Rs. 29,400/ -. But it was ordered that the claimants would not be entitled to recover the amount since they have no right to continue the proceedings on the death of Mohanbhai, since action for the personal injury died with the death of Mohanbhai. Further it was also noticed by the Tribunal that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident was occurred because of the negligence on the part of opponents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. Claim petition was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 8th August, 1989.

( 5 ) AGAINST the above judgment, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred First Appeal No. 301 of 1990 before this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Janabhai and ors.- 1991 ACJ 585, as well as Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn Vs. Amishkumar Vinodbhai and ors.- 1996 (3) GLR 212 and held that the aim of award of damages is to compensate the person wronged, and there is no reason why measure of damages pertaining to estate should be in any way affected or limited by the death of the original victim of the accident. Learned Single Judge also observed that scope of provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act has a maxim "sactio personalis moritur cum persona", which appears to be well settled, and the claim of damages on account of loss to the estate of the injured would not abate on his death. The learned Single Judge further held that claim regarding loss caused to the estate would include several items such as medical expenses, miscellaneous expenses, actual loss of income from the date of injuries till the death of the injured etc. but for the injuries sustained, the injured would not have been required to incur the said expenses nor would have suffered actual loss of income. Therefore, it was concluded that even after death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and the right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives.

( 6 ) WE noticed that no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company and there is a clear finding by the Tribunal that the claimants could not establish the accident was due to accident on the part of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Present appeal has been preferred only by the owner of the vehicle contending that the learned Single Judge was not correct i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document