Back
1990 Supreme(HP) 139
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.C.BALAKRISHNA,DEVINDER GUPTA
NARINDER KAUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
L. P. A. Nos. 8 and 10 of 1982
Decided On : 12/11/1990
For the appellant(s) :Shri K. D. Sood, Advocate, fin L. P. A. No. 8 of 1982) ; Shri D. K. Khanna, Advocate (in L. P. A. No. 18 of 1982). For the respondent(s):Shri M. L. Chauhan, Asstt. Advocate, General for respondent No. 1 (in L. P. A No. 8 of 1982 and for respondent No. 7 in L. P. A. No. 10 of 1982 Shri D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 in L. P. A:No. 8 of 1982), and Shri K. D. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No, 6 to 8 in L. P. A. No. 10 of 1982).
The heirs of a person who dies as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident are entitled to be brought on record as claimants in his place and to continue the proceedings to seek compensation for the loss caused to his estate.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-A, 110-B, 306 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SURVIVAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - AMENDMENT OF CLAIM PETITION - DELAY - CONDONATION.
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred involving a jeep and a truck, resulting in serious injuries to the jeep driver, Ajit Singh. Ajit Singh filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation for pain, shock, disability, loss of earning capacity, treatment expenses, and damages to the jeep. During the pendency of the claim petition, Ajit Singh passed away. His heirs applied to be brought on record as claimants in his place, and also sought to amend the claim petition to include an additional claim for compensation due to Ajit Singh's death.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed both applications. On appeal, the High Court held that the heirs were entitled to be brought on record as legal representatives of Ajit Singh and to continue the proceedings in respect of the loss caused to his estate. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order rejecting the amendment of the claim petition, but allowed the heirs to file a separate claim petition under Section 110-B of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the heirs of Ajit Singh could be brought on record as claimants in his place after his death. 2. Whether the heirs could amend the claim petition to include an additional claim for compensation due to Ajit Singh's death. 3. Whether the delay in filing the amended claim petition could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of Actio personalis moritur cum persona, which provides that personal actions die with the person, does not apply to claims for loss caused to the estate of the deceased by a tortfeasor. 2. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act provides that all demands and rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceedings existing in favor or against a person at the time of his death survive, except for certain exceptions, including actions for defamation, assault, and other personal injuries not causing death. 3. The heirs of Ajit Singh, as his legal representatives, were entitled to be substituted in his place and to continue the proceedings in the case to seek compensation for the loss caused to his estate. 4. The additional claim laid by the heirs was an independent claim which they were entitled to make under Section 110-B of the Act. 5. The delay in filing the amended claim petition could be condoned, considering that the heirs had been bonafide prosecuting their remedy before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of both appeals by directing the Tribunal to bring the heirs of Ajit Singh on record as claimants in his place and to continue the proceedings in respect of the loss caused to his estate. The High Court also directed the Tribunal to register the amended claim petition as a separate petition made by the heirs under Section 110-B of the Act and to dispose of it in accordance with law.
Devinder Gupta, J,—This judgment will dispose of L. P. A No. 8 of 1982, Narinder Kaur and others v. State of H. P and others, and L. P. A. No 10 of 1^82, H R. T. C v. Narinder Kaur and others, as they arise out of toe same judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in F. A. O. No. 18 of 1976 on March 24, 1982.
2. One Ajit Singh, while travelling on July 4, 1973, in Jeep No DHB 5086 from Tolu to Shimla, received serious injuries as a result of accident with truck No HIM 4i26 owned by the State of H. P. The accident occur red near Research Institute and Government of India Press on Cart Road Shimla Said Ajit Singh alleging the accident to have occurring to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck filed a petition on January 2, 1974 under section i 10-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of pain, shock, disability, loss of earning capacity, treatment expenses and special nourishment etc. A sum of Rs. 1,600 was claimed by way of damages caused to the jeep owned by him.
3. On and from October 2, 1974, management of the Himachal Government Transport of the State of Himachal Pradesh was taken over by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and the claim of the said Ajit Singh (hereinafter to be called as the original claimant) was allowed to proceed against the said Corporation The claim petition was resisted by the Corporation before the Tribunal The original claimant was asked to produce evidence in support of his claim but before any evidence could be led, he expired on February 10, 1975.
4. On April 5, 1975, an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 of the same Code was moved by the heirs of original claimant, who are now appellants in L. P. A. No. 8 of 1982 (hereinafter to be called as the claimants), seeking to be brought on record as claimants in place of original claimant. The application was resisted by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the original claimant had laid a claim for personal injuries and as such on his death right to claim compensation could not survive to his heirs. The claimants filed a rejoinder to the said reply pointing out that they were entitled to continue the application in respect of the loss, which had accrued on the receipt of the injuries by the original claimant, including the amount which he had incurred on his treatment and loss of business etc as also the damage caused to the jeep During the pendency of the application, on August 25, 1975, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alongwith proposed amended petition, was moved by the claimants seeking amendment of the claim petition by laying an additional claim of Rs 2,00,000 on the ground that the original claimant, who received serious injuries in the accident, died due to such injuries. This application was also resisted by the respondent-Corporation by denying that the death of the original claimant was in any manner relatable to the injuries suffered by him in the accident occurred on July 4, 1973.
5. The Tribunal on January 9, 1976, by a common order dismissed both the applications. The claimants challenged the said order by filing F. A. O. No. 18 of 1976. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application moved by the claimants for being brought on record as legal representatives of original claimant without returning a fiQding with respect to the cause of the death of the original claimant especially when the original claimant had also laid a claim with respect to loss to the estate but in so far as the order of Tribunal rejecting the application of the claimants for amendment of claim petition was concerned, it was upheld on the ground that the claimants had an independent right to move the application for the grant
