Back
2001(1) JLJ 365
Bhawani Singh C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram and others
M.A. No. 192 of 1996; against the award of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (IIIrd); Durg, passed in
Claim Case No. 75 of 1986; Decided on 20.10.2000.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 3 -- claim for personal injuries -- no substitution can be claimed by legal representatives after death of plaintiff/appellant. AIR 1944 Mad. 405 and AIR 1974 Mad. 178 relied on. [Para 9
(3) Legal Maxims -- "actio personalis moritur cum persona -- extent of application.
(4) Succession Act, 1925 -- S. 306 -- principle of maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" -- applicability has been modified by the provision under -- loss of estate can be claimed by legal representatives.
The moot question is whether the common law rule "actio personalis moritur cum persona" relates only to personal bodily injuries and not to the loss caused to the estate of the deceased by tort feasors.
Held: It is found that in its applicability, the principle has been modified significantly by the provision of section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, a reading of which demonstrates that cause of action survives to the legal representatives including one relating to the loss to the estate but not for defending assault and other personal injuries not causing death of the party. 1975 ACJ 448, 1984 ACJ 645, 1986 ACT 440, AIR 1988 SC 506, 1988 ACJ 417, 1989 ACJ 1114, 1985 ACJ 539, AIR 1990 P and H, 91, 1991 ACT 767, 1992 ACT 748, 1995 ACJ 208, 1996 JLJ 505, 1998(1) ACJ 601, 1999 ACT 699 and 1991 ACT 707 discussed and relied on. [Paras 10 to 18
(5) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 -- Ss. 1A and 2 -- Court deciding compensation case of fatal accident -- expected to take into account provisions under -- both sections contemplate distinct categories of compensation.
When the Court proceeds to make award of compensation in cases which have resulted in a fatal accident, the Court is also expected to take into account two relevant sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Both these sections contemplate a distinct category of compensation. Under section 1A, the compensation is required to be paid to one or more of the relatives of the deceased for loss of their dependency, while under section 2, the damages are required to be paid to the estate on account of the loss caused to the estate, the compensation may be same or different, depending on the facts of the case. [Para 16
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 168 -- case of personal injury -- death of claimant -- legal representatives entitled to the loss of estate only -- what is estate.
The question is "what is estate?". A person earns for himself and his dependents. He also augments his estate by savings out of his earnings. "Estate" has undoubtedly in law a diversity of meaning and variety of signification. It may mean property of a living man or that of a deceased person, which passes to his administrator, executor and legal heirs. It may be movable and immovable. The amount spent on himself and dependents stands exhausted; while the amount added to the estate augments the same unless it is used for meeting expenditures like medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, transport, doctor‘s fees etc., thereby causing pecuniary loss to the estate. [Paras 17 & 19
(7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 168 and 173 Sch. II -- injured claimant dying in appeal -- award in his favour by Tribunal -- cross-objection for enhancement duly filed -- legal representatives may be impleaded and can pursue the case of loss to estate -- they can be awarded Rs. 2,500/- as per IInd Schedule. [Para 20
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 103d && eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 157¼2½ && chekdrkZ dks vkosnu@izKkiuk ds fcuk eksVj ;ku dk varj.k && chekdrkZ ijO;fDr nkos ls eqfDr ugha ikrk && rFkkfi ikfylh varfjrh tksf[ke ds ckjs esa izHkkoh ugha jgrhA 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 126 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22 fu- 3 && O;fDrxr {kfr;ksa ds fy, nkok && ;kph@vihykFkhZ dh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk izfrLFkkiuk dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1944 enzkl 405 rFkk , vkb vkj 1974 enzkl 178 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9
¼3½ fof/kd lw= && dkjZokbZ dk O;fDrxr vf/kdkj O;fDr dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrk gS && ykxw gksus dh lhekA
¼4½ mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 306 && fof/k lw= ^^dkjZokbZ dk O;fDrxr vf/kdkj O;fDr dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrk gS** dk fl)kar && /kkjk ds v/khu mica/k }kjk ykxw gksuk mikarfjr fd;k x;k gS && fof/k izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk laink dh gkfu dk nkok fd;k tk ldrk gSA
fooknkLin iz‘u ;g gS fd D;k ^^dkjZokbZ dk O;fDrxr vf/kdkj O;fDr dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrk gS** dk lkekU; fof/k dk fu;e dsoy O;fDrxr ‘kkjhfjd {kfr;ksa ds laca/k esa gS] vid`R;drkZvksa }kjk e`rd dh laink dks dkfjr gkfu ds laca/k esa ugha \
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k gS fd bl fl)kar ds ykxw gksus dks Hkkjrh; mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 306 ds mica/k }kjk egRoiw.kZ :i ls mikarfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds ikB ls Li"V gksrk gS fd fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks okn gsrqd cpk jgrk gS] ftlesa laink dh gkfu ds laca/k esa okn gsrqd lfEefyr gS ijarq geys rFkk i{kdkj dh e`R;q dkfjr ugha djus okyh vU; {kfr;ksa dk cpko djus ds fy, ughaA 1975 , lh ts 448] 1984 , lh ts 645] 1986 , lh ts 440] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 506] 1988 , lh ts 417] 1989 , lh ts 1114] 1985 , lh ts 539] , vkb vkj 1990 iatkc rFkk gfj- 91] 1991 , lh ts 767] 1992 , lh ts 748] 1995 , lh ts 208] 1996 ts ,y ts 505] 1998¼1½ , lh ts 601] 1999 , lh ts 699 rFkk 1991 , lh ts 707 foosfpr rFkk voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10 ls 18
¼5½ ?kkrd nq?kZVuk vf/kfu;e] 1855 && /kkjk 1d rFkk 2 && ?kkrd nq?kZVuk ds izfrdj ekeys dk fofu‘p;u djus okys U;k;ky; ls && /kkjkvksa ds v/khu mica/kksa dks /;ku esa j[kk tkuk izR;kf‘kr gS && nksuksa /kkjkvksa esa izfrdj ds lqfHkUu izoxZ vuq/;kr gSaA
tc U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls ekeyksa esa izfrdj ds vf/kfu.kZ; dh dk;Zokgh dh tkrh gS tks ?kkrd nq?kZVuk esa ifj.kr gq, gSa] rc U;k;ky; ls izR;kf‘kr gS fd ?kkrd nq?kZVuk vf/kfu;e] 1855 dh nks lqlaxr /kkjk,¡ 1d rFkk 2 dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk tk,xkA bu nksuksa /kkjkvksa esa izfrdj ds lqfHkUu izoxZ vuq/;kr gSaA /kkjk 1d ds v/khu] e`rd ds ukrsnkjksa esa ls ,d ;k vf/kd dks mudh vkfJrrk dh gkfu ds fy, izfrdj lanÙk fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS( tcfd /kkjk 2 ds v/khu] laink dks dkfjr gkfu ds dkj.k laink dks uqdlkuh lanÙk fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS ekeys rF;ksa ds vuqlkj izfrdj ogh vFkok fHkUu gks ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 16
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 && O;fDrxr {kfr dk ekeyk && nkosnkj dh e`R;q && fofkd izfrfuf/k dsoy laink dh gkfu ds gdnkj && laink D;k gSA
iz‘u gS fd ^^laink D;k gS \**A O;fDr vius rFkk vius vkfJrksa ds fy, miktZu djrk gSA og vius miktZu esa ls cpr dj viuh laink dks laof/kZr djrk gSA fu%lansg fof/k esa laink ds fofo/k rkRi;Z rFkk vusd izdkj ds vFkZ gSaA bldk vFkZ thfor O;fDr vFkok e`r O;fDr dh laifÙk gks ldrk gS tks mlds iz‘kkld] fu"iknd rFkk fof/kd izfrfuf/k dks gLrkarfjr gks tkrh gSA og taxe rFkk LFkkoj gks ldrh gSA Lo;a rFkk vkfJrksa ij [kpZ dh xbZ jde fu%‘ks"k gks tkrh gS tcfd laink esa tksM+h x;h jde ls laink laof/kZr gksrh gS tc rd fd mls vkS"k/k] mipkj] vkgkj] ifjpj] ifjogu] fpfdRld dh Qhl vkfn tSls O;; esa mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gks ftlls laink dh /kuh; gkfu gksrh gSA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 19
¼7½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 rFkk 173] vuqlwph 2 && {kfrxzLr nkosnkj dh vihy ds nkSjku e`R;q && vf/kdj.k }kjk mlds i{k esa vf/kfu.kZ; && o`f) ds fy, izR;k{ksi lE;d~:is.k Qkby fd;k x;k && fof/kd izfrfyfi la;ksftr fd, tk ldrs gSa rFkk og laink dks gqbZ gkfu dk ekeyk vkxs c<+k ldrs gSa && mUgsa vuqlwph 2 ds vuqlkj :- 2]500@& vf/kfu.khZr fd, tk ldrs gSaA ¿ iSjk 20
Singh, C.J. -- 1. We propose to decide both the aforesaid appeals (Misc. Appeal No. 192/96 -- Umedchand Golcha (dead) through Legal Heirs v. Dayaram and others, and Misc. Appeal No. 88/98 -- Smt. Sunita and others v. Smt. Pushpa Sharma and others), since common questions for consideration and decision arise in both of them.
2. Before adverting to consider the same, desirable it would be to make mention of material facts of the cases one after the other.
3. Misc. Appeal No. 192/96 is directed against the award dated 21.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IIIrd), Durg, in Claim Case No. 75/86. The claimant-Umedchand Golcha (dead) was going from Rajnandgaon to Durg on motorcycle of his friend Shikharchand Jain on 1.3.1984. The truck bearing registration No. CPR 8964 belonging to Satyanarayan Sharma, driven by Dayaram and insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd, dashed against the said motorcycle. As a result of this accident, the claimant fell down and his right leg was seriously injured, apart from injuries on other parts of the body. He availed treatment at various places like Durg, Pune, Madras, Vishakhapatnam and Bombay. His claim is that he became permanently disabled in the accident by 40%, therefore, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
4. The owner of the vehicle has denied the allegations raised by the claimant and stated inter alia that the vehicle was insured. The Insurance Company stated that the claim was excessive. The contract of insurance was not with Satyanarayan Sharma. Instead, it was with Devendra Singh, the original owner of the vehicle, and the Insurance Company had not been intimated about the transfer of the vehicle; therefore, the policy issued in favour of Devendra Singh stood lapsed and the contract of insurance ceased to exist. It was not liable to indemnify the transferee of the vehicle. The Tribunal, on consideration of material on record, accepted the allegation of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It also found that the vehicle had been transferred by Devendra Singh in favour of Satyanarayan Sharma, but no intimation was given to the Insurance Company; therefore, it was not responsible to satisfy the award. Consequently, it was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.
5. The award was challenged by the claimant on various grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. It may be pertinent to record that the Full Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Leelabai and others (Misc. Appeal No. 467/97) and other connected matters, decided on 14.10.1999, 2000 (2) JLJ 126 (FB) on reference made by the Division Bench by this Court by order dated 23.9.1997 passed in Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram and others (MA No. 192/96), held that the insurance policy remains effective in respect of third party risks but not in respect of transferee risks, even if there has been absence of application/intimation as stipulated under section 103A of the Act and law laid down in Balwant Singh v. Jhunnubai and others (1980 ACJ 126) and Sabir Hussain v. Maya Bai and others (1997 ACJ 1258) and similar other decisions, was no more good law. Therefore, the claim of the Insurance Company that it was not liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the reasons that on transfer of vehicle without intimation to it, policy ceased to exist and there was no privity of contract between the Company and the transferee, stands rejected.
6. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant - Umedchand Golcha died because of personal injuries sustained by him and in his place, his legal representatives have been substituted by the Court by order dated 22.11.1999.
7. Misc. Appeal No. 88/98 (Smt. Sunita and others v. Smt. Pushpa Sharma and others), is directed against the award dated 21.10.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur, in Claim Case No. 27/92
SupremeToday
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
