The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of legal representatives to continue a claim petition and receive compensation for loss of estate, including medical expenses and loss of income, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, after the death of the injured.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The issue involved in this appeal is "Whether legal representatives of the injured-claimant are entitled to prosecute the claim petition after death of the injured during pendency of the claim petition?" This question needs to be answered in this appeal.

2. Facts in brief of the case are that the injured-Rajesh submitted a claim petition under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act of 1923', for short) before the Commissioner of Wrokemen's Compensation, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') stating therein that he was employed with the contractor for completion of work at the premises of the appellant-Padam Singh. During the course of the employment/work, he sustained certain grievous injuries, fractures and permanent disability, hence he suffered loss of income. A prayer was made in the claim petition that appropriate amount of compensation be awarded for the injuries, permanent disability and loss of income suffered by him.

3. The appellant-non-claimant Padam Singh filed reply and submitted that the injured Rajesh was not working in his employment and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. Non-claimant-respondent No. 2-Bhawani Shankar submitted reply and denied the averments of the claim petition and denied the factum of relationship of employer and employee and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed as many as five issues. In support of the claim petition, statements of the witnesses, Kalibai, Chhotulal, Madhu Bai and Narayan were recorded and as many as 36 documents were exhibited and on the other hand, non-claimant-appellant Padam Singh examined himself and no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent-non-claimant-Bhawani Shankar. In absence of the non-claimant-respondent No. 2-Bhawani Shankar, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him by the Commissioner vide order dated 22.09.2016. During the pendency of the claim petition, injured died on 04.11.2013. Thereafter, his legal representatives submitted an application for substitution as claimants in the claim petition and the said application was allowed after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Commissioner vide judgment and award dated 27.12.2018 and directed the appellant-Non-claimant and the non-claimant-respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,04,646/- for loss of income and of Rs. 13,764/- for the medical expenses occurred in treatment of the injured.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-non-claimant-Padam Singh.

6. Counsel for the appellant-non-claimant submits that the injured-claimant-Rajesh died during the pendency of the claim, hence the claim petition was liable to be rejected as legal representatives of the deceased were not having any right to continue with the claim petition. Counsel further submits that the right to sue did not survive, in case of the death of the injured-deceased and the legal representatives of the injured deceased were not entitled to continue with the claim and to get any sort of compensation except loss of estate. Counsel submits that there was no relationship between the employer and the injured-deceased but this fact was overlooked by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has committed an error in allowing the claim petition directing the appellant and the non-claimant-respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation as indicated above.

7. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Jenabai & Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., reported in .

8. Lastly, she argued that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable. She further submitted that in the instant case, the claim pet