1970 Supreme(P&H) 92
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.D.Koshal, J.
Calcutta Insurance Ltd.
Versus
Bhupinder Singh
Civil Revision No. 230 of 1970,
Decided On : MAY 5, 1970
A personal action for personal injuries not resulting in death does not survive to the heirs of the injured person.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - ABATEMENT OF ACTION - PERSONAL INJURY NOT RESULTING IN DEATH - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION DOES NOT SURVIVE TO HEIRS - SECTION 306, INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Kartar Singh filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for physical and mental pain suffered by him as a result of injuries sustained in an accident. During the pendency of the proceedings, Kartar Singh died. His son and daughter applied to be brought on the record as his legal representatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the action brought by Kartar Singh abated with his death and that his son and daughter had no right to continue the same. The court found that the right to compensation for personal injuries not resulting in death is a personal right that does not survive to the heirs of the injured person.
Issues: Whether the action brought by Kartar Singh abated with his death.
Ratio Decidendi: 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 to the executors or administrators of the deceased person. The court also relied on the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, which means that a personal action dies with the person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and declared that the action brought by Kartar Singh abated with his death.
A.D.Koshal, J.
1. This is a petition for revision of the order dated the 29th of January, 1970, of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, directing that the son (respondent No. 1) and daughter (respondent No. 2) of Shri Kartar Singh who had filed before him an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") claiming an amount of Rs. 20,000 from respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as well as the petitioner before me on account of physical and mental pain suffered by him (Kartar Singh) as a result of the injuries which he sustained in an accident on the 21st May, 1967, at about 6.30 p.m., be brought on the record as his (Kartar Singhs) legal representatives after his death. Respondent No. 3 is the proprietor and respondent No. 4 is the driver of truck No. PNO-2195 which was involved in the accident while the petitioner is the insurance company with which the truck was under insurance on the said date.
2. Kartar Singh above mentioned died on the 16th October, 1969, while his application under Section 110-A of the Act was pending with the Tribunal, who accepted the prayer of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be allowed to continue the application as his legal representatives. Reliance in this connection was placed by the Tribunal on Chuhar Mal Ishar Das v. Haji Wali Mohd. in which it was held that Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to an application under Section 110-A of the Act, that, such an application did not abate on the death of its makers and that an application of that type was of a "representative character".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the proposition that Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern applications envisaged by Section 110-A of the Act, His contention, however, is that there is no question of such an application being of a " representative character " if it is made by a person on account of injuries not resulting in his death. After hearing him I am of the opinion that this contention merits acceptance and that Chuhar Mals case, [1968] Accident Claims Journal 391. does not apply to the facts with which we are here concerned. In that case the father of a person who had died in an accident had made an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation for himself as also on behalf of his wife (the mother of the deceased). The mother died during the pendency of the proceedings and it was held that there was no question of abatement of the cause as a result of her death.
4. With great respect I must say that the case was correctly decided inasmuch as the claim was for compensation in respect of the injury suffered by the estate of the deceased and not by any one personally and that is not the case here. Here the action was brought by a person claiming compensation not on account of the death of another but for injuries to himself and in such a case the right to prosecute the action must be regarded as a personal one which does not survive on the death of the applicant to his heirs by virtue of the rule expressed in the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona which stands adopted by the legislature in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. That section stated :
" 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 his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party ; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. "
5. This section leaves no room for doubt that cases of personal injury not resulting in the death of the person injured give rise only to a personal action which the executors or administrators of that person ar