The claim for compensation for bodily injuries does not abate on the death of the injured. The award forms part of the estate of the injured and devolves on the legal representatives.

S.K. Chawla, J.

1. An award for Rs. 61,000/- having been passed by Claims Tribunal on account of compensation for bodily injuries suffered in a motor accident, the present appeal has been filed by the owners of the vehicle seeking reduction of compensation. A cross-objection was filed by the claimant-respondent Munna seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

2. Claimant-respondent Munna died during the pendency of the present appeal and his legal representatives being his widow and children were brought on record as respondents.

3. It was first canvassed by Mr. R.D. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants, that with the death of claimant-respondent Munna during the pendency of the present appeal, the claim for compensation for bodily injuries, being cause of action for "personal injuries not causing the death" within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, did not survive on the death of the injured and hence, the present respondents, being the legal representatives, are not entitled to any compensation. In other words, the award of Rs. 61,000/- deserves to be set aside after the death of claimant-injured. Reliance was placed by Mr. Jain on the decisions in Joti Ram v. Chaman Lal 1984 ACJ 645 (P&H), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. H. Siddalinga Naika 1985 ACJ 89 (Karnataka) and Legal representatives of Om Prakash Maya v. Mahendra Pal 1989 ACJ 1114(Rajasthan).

4. There is no force in the above contention raised by Mr. Jain. The above decisions would themselves show that part of the claim for compensation for personal injuries, which pertains to the loss to the estate of the injured, does not abate but survives to his legal representatives. Only such items of claim which are, for example, for mental agony, disablement, etc., do not survive on the death of the injured.

5. Secondly, the passing of the award changes the entire complexion. Once an award is made, the cause of action merges in the award and the award forms part of the estate of the injured. As such, on the death of the injured, the award devolves on the legal representatives of the deceased with the result that in the appeal from the award the question involved is about benefit or detriment to the estate of the deceased, which his legal representatives are entitled to uphold and defend. They are, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased claimant-respondent and to defend the award. See Ghisalal v. Nihalsingh 1992 ACJ 181 (MP), which is a decision of this High Court in which the ratio of Supreme Court decision in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair 1986 ACJ 440 (SC), was applied.

6. It is, therefore, wrong to say that after the death of the claimant-injured in appeal, nothing has survived to his legal representatives. On the other hand, the award of Rs. 61,000/- which had already become part of the estate of the injured has survived to the legal representatives. They are entitled to defend that award in this appeal filed by the owners.

7. But the claim for enhanced compensation on account of bodily injuries other than for loss to the estate of the injured, contained in the cross-objection would not survive after the death of the injured. There are two decisions on the point. In the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. H. Siddalinga Naika 1985 ACJ 89 (Karnataka), after securing an award of Rs. 61,970/- on account of compensation for bodily injuries suffered in a motor accident, the injured filed an appeal for enhancement, but died during the pendency of the appeal. It was held that after his death his claim for enhanced compensation abated. In the second decision of Ghisalal, 1992 ACJ 181 (MP), where after securing an award of Rs. 27,300/- for compensation for bodily injuries suffered in a motor accident, the injured brought an appeal for enhancement of compensation and also for reversal of the finding whereby the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from payment of the amount o