Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das

1. This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.12.1999, passed by learned Single Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. TS (MAC) 360 of 1997.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam and learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the respondents.

3. Only question, which has arisen in course of arguments for decision, as to whether a claimant-petitioner, who has claimed compensation under the M.V. Act for the personal injury suffered by him, died during pendency of the claim, not inconsequence of the injuries suffered by him due to Motor Vehicle accident, but for some other cause, can his successors/legal representatives continue with the claim case for compensation?

4. Bimal Sinha, since deceased, husband and father of substituted appellant No. 1 (A), Smt. Sipra Bhowmik and 1(B), Sri Santanu Sinha, respectively, met a motor vehicle accident on 17.08.1996 and suffered severe injuries. He filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, claiming compensation of Rs.52,00,000/-, with interest thereon, against the owners and insurers of the offending vehicles i.e. the respondents and that claim petition was registered as case No. TS (MAC) 360 of 1997. The Tribunal in due course, by judgment and award, dated 20.12.1999 awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- with 12% interest per annum, thereon, w.e.f. the date of application i.e. 01.08.1997.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, the injured claimant Bimal Sinha, since deceased, filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, praying for enhancement of the compensation.

6. During pendency of the appeal, the said claimant petitioner Bimal Sinha died a natural death on 01.12.2005, and thereafter, his wife and son i.e. the present appellants, named above filed a petition for adding them as appellants in place of the deceased and as per order passed on 07.03.2006 in CM Appln. No. 63 of 2006, they were added as parties to the appeal in place of the deceased claimant appellant Bimal Sinha.

7. Indisputably, Bimal Sinha, since deceased filed the claim case before the Tribunal and after disposal of the claim case he filed the present appeal before this Court under Section 173 of M.V. Act, praying for enhancement of the compensation and he died a natural death during pendency of the appeal.

The question arises whether his legal heirs/representatives have got a right to continue with the claim case/appeal after the death of the deceased. Section 166 of M.V. Act has prescribed that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the natures specified in Sub-Section 1 of Section 165 of the Act may be made by-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representative of the deceased, as the case may be:

....

So according to the above provision of law, an injured may present his/her petition claiming compensation himself/herself, or through any duly authorized agent. In the present case, the injured himself presented the petition claiming compensation, which has been disposed of and he has presented the appeal and while the appeal was pending he died a natural death. Now his wife and son have been substituted as the appellants in his place. In the circumstances, we have to see whether the principles enunciated in the maxim "Actio Personalis Moritur-cum-Persona" is applicable and whether the claim through the appeal presented by the injured has been abated. According to law, a personal claim for the personal injury is liable to be aba