The legal representatives of a deceased claimant are entitled to further prosecute the litigation and receive the compensation as loss to the estate, as per the Indian Succession Act, Section 306, and established case law.

1. The injured claimant Venkatesan in the claim petition in MCOP.No.99/2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, MACT, Maduranthagam has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the award dated 18.9.2009, being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,74,754/-awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him. The injured claimant/appellant died pending the appeal and the Appellants 2 to 4, who are the wife and daughters of the injured claimant, were brought on record as his legal representatives by order of this court dated 4.6.2012 made in CMP.No.1/2010 and thus, the said legal representatives are further prosecuting the litigation at present.

2. Mr. R. Nadana Sabapathy, the learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that in the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence, the compensation requires to be enhanced. The learned counsel would contend that the legal representatives of an injured can further prosecute the litigation, since it is a loss to the estate of the deceased and hence, despite the fact that the original injured claimant is no more and died during the pendency of the appeal, the same may not come in the way of granting compensation by this court. The learned counsel referred to the decision of this court reported in AIR-2009-Madras-22 (Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. S.V.Mani and others) in support of his contention that the appeal filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation would not get abated on the death of the deceased and the legal representatives/dependents are entitled to prosecute the appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellants has taken this court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge and would point out that the approach adopted by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be justifiable.

3. Per contra, Mr. G. Udayasankar, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company would contend that in such cases, after the death of the injured, the cause of action does not survive and the legal representatives are not entitled to further prosecute the litigation. The learned counsel would submit that at any rate, such awarding of compensation cannot be beyond the life time of the injured. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend that in the light of the evidence available on record and looking into the injuries, the award of compensation is just and reasonable.

4. The deceased sole appellant, who initially filed the appeal, was the claimant/petitioner, who sustained injuries in the accident that had occurred on 8.1.2000 at 1.45 p.m. on ECR Road at Koovathur Village. On the date of the accident, while he was proceeding to his house on ECR Road, he was hit by an ambassador Car bearing Reg.No.TN-07-D-7209 which came in the opposite direction. The Petitioner was thrown off and he sustained head injuries. In the claim petition, it is stated that he was still undergoing treatment and he had been advised to undergo another eye operation, in spite of the surgery undergone by him in eye and the head. He was completely disabled to do day-today work, as there is loss of eye sight besides disfiguration. In his evidence, he had deposed that he was hospitalized for nearly 1 ½ months and even thereafter he continued treatment as an out patient in the Government Hospital, Chennai for nearly three months. He has deposed that he has taken treatment from a private Doctor continuously. He has further deposed that he was earning Rs.5000/- p.m. as a paddy merchant. His evidence further indicated that he was unable to do the work which he was doing before on account of the injuries sustained by him. He claimed Rs.6 lakhs as compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and taking note of the fact that the deceased Appellant suffered 45 per