The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legal representatives cannot prosecute a claim petition for personal damage if the death of the injured claimant was not caused as a result of the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to set aside the decree and award dated 11.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Perambalur.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants (legal representatives of the deceased claimant Narayanan) against the decree and award dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Sub Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Perambalur in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 15.03.1992, at about 3.30 p.m, when one Narayanan (father of the appellants herein) was riding a cycle on the left side of the National Highway No.45 and crossing a lorry which was stationed on the left side of the road, suddenly, a car bearing Registration No.TDYL 5464 belongs to first respondent and insured with second respondent which was proceeding from Trichy to Perambalur hit the said Narayanan behind his back side, due to which, his leg was crushed under the car wheel and he was unable to move. Therefore, the said Narayanan filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1168 of 1992 before the Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli as against one K.V.Subramanian (then owner of the car) and the second respondent (insurance company).

2.1. Then, the M.C.O.P.No.1168 of 1992 was transferred to Sub Court, Ariyalur and numbered as M.C.O.P.No.320 of 1992. The Sub Court, Ariyalur vide order dated 06.08.1996, dismissed the claim as against the second respondent (insurance company) and passed the award in favour of the claimant Narayanan by directing the said K.V.Subramanian (then owner of the car) to pay the compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with interest and costs to the claimant Narayanan. While so, the said Narayanan had died on 22.03.1999. Thereafter, the claim petition was transferred to Principal District Court, Perambalur and numbered as M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009. On 22.06.2010, the appellants (legal representatives of the deceased Narayanan) were impleaded as petitioners 2 & 3 in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009.

2.2. In the meanwhile, the said K.V.Subramanian (then owner of the car) filed an application to set aside the award dated 06.08.1996 and the same was allowed. On 01.02.2011, one Shanmuganathan S/o. K.V.Subramanian was impleaded as first respondent in this case. After the death of Narayanan (original claimant), the appellants/claimants 2 & 3 had prosecuted the claim petition on behalf of the deceased Narayanan by claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards the injuries sustained by the deceased Narayanan in the said road accident.

3. Both the first respondent (owner of the car) and second respondent (insurance company) had filed their respective counter statement in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009 denying all the averments made by the appellants/claimants in the Claim Petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the claim petition, the first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 on her side. On the side of the respondents, first respondent was examined as R.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as R.W.2 & R.W.3, but, no document was marked as exhibit.

5. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the claim petition is not maintainable since there is no cause of action that survive upon the legal representatives of the deceased claimant Narayanan. By arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2009. The operative portion of the award passed by the Tribunal is as follows:

“10. According to the petitioner 2 & 3, they being the legal representatives of the 1st petitioner/injured claimant, they are entitled to prosecute the claim peti