Back
Madras High Court
KAILASAM,N. S. RAMASWAMI
C.P.Kandaswamy - Appellant
Versus
Mariappa Stores - Respondent
Decided On : 01/22/1973
MOTOR ACCIDENT - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - DEATH OF CLAIMANT DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL - ABATEMENT OF APPEAL - SECTION 306, INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - CAUSES OF ACTION SURVIVING DEATH - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A claim for damages was filed by an individual, Mr. C.P. Kandaswami, for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation for medical expenses, loss of professional income, and shock, pain, and suffering. The claimant was dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant died.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cause of action for the disallowed portion of the claim did not survive after the death of the claimant and that the appeal abated. The court relied on Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which provides that causes of action for personal injuries not causing the death of the party do not survive after the death of the injured person.
Issues: 1. Whether the cause of action for the disallowed portion of the claim survived after the death of the claimant? 2. Whether the appeal abated due to the death of the claimant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and held that the clause "other personal injuries not causing the death of the party" included physical injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. 2. The court held that the appeal abated because the cause of action for the disallowed portion of the claim did not survive after the death of the claimant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as abated.
N.S. RAMASWAMI, J. :- A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of thus Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is raised by the contesting respondents and we think that the objection. has to be upheld and the appeal dismissed. The appeal arises out of a claim of Rs. 25,000/- made by one Mr. C.P. Kandaswami, an Advocate practising at Coimbatore, for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 1-11-1962 on the Perundurai-Erode Road. He was travelling in a Fiat Taxi bearing registration No. MDE 5747 and proceeding from Perundurai to Erode, when the Ambassador car bearing registration No. MDY 7077 belonging to the 1st respondent to the petition and driven by the 1st respondent's driver Senniappan came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Fiat Taxi and thereby caused several injuries to Mr. Kandasami, the petitioner. The petitioner claimed in all a sum of Rs. 25,000/- made up of Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of professional income Rs. 10,000/- for shock, pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the permanent partial disability suffered by him on account of the accident.
2. The four respondents impleaded in the petition are the owner of the Ambassador car (1st respondent), the owner-driver of the Fiat taxi (2nd respondent), the insurer of the Ambassador car (3rd respondent) and the insurer of the Fiat taxi (4th respondent). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore found that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car MDY 7077 belonging to the 1st respondent and that therefore the compensation payable to the petitioner should come out of the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the said Ambassador car. Though the petitioner claimed a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- made up of Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of professional income during the period when the petitioner was unable to attend to his professional work and another sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering as a result of the injuries sustained. The Tribunal negatived the real of the claim. Respondents 1 and 3, against whom the abovesaid compensation was awarded by the Tribunal, accepted the award and they have not filed any appeal against the same. The petitioner (claimant) filed this appeal in respect of the disallowed portion of the claim. After the filing of the appeal, the petitioner died. His legal representatives have now come on record as appellants. But even when they were impleaded as legal representatives, it has been made clear that such impleading was only subject to the question whether the cause of action survived after the death of Mr. Kandasami, the petitioner-appellant.
3. Now, the preliminary objection raised by the contesting respondents is that after the death of Mr. Kandasami, the cause of action did not survive on the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona. There are two aspects to this question. The first is whether the physical injuries sustained by the petitioner come under the clause, "other personal injuries not causing the death of the party" excepted under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The second aspect is, the claim having been filed by the injured himself and the same having been partially allowed, after which the injured himself filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, whether on his death during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal should abate.
4. A plain reading of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act would undoubtedly go to show that the cause of action regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in this case would not survive on his death. We will extract Section 306 and it is as follows :-
"All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
