Legal representatives can claim damages for pecuniary loss after a claimant's death, but not for personal injuries suffered themselves.

1. The appeal is against the award dated 7.7.2012 passed in Claim Case No. 5 of 2011 by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur whereby award of Rs. 70,000 was passed in favour of the claimant.

2. Briefly facts are that Roop Singh Baghel filed a claim petition on the ground that he was travelling on a motor cycle bearing No. CG 17 - K 8840 as a pillion rider and was going from Jagdalpur to his village Madhota. It was contended that when they reached near village Parchanpal at that time a pickup van which was coming from Raipur bearing No. CG 04 - JA 5902 driven in a rash and negligent manner came to the wrong side and dashed the claimant Roop Singh Baghel. By such accident, Roop Singh Baghel sustained fracture of both legs and he was initially admitted to Maharani Hospital at Jagdalpur and thereafter at MPM Hospital at Jagdalpur. It was contended that claimant Roop Singh Baghel was working in Chhattisgarh Police and because of such accident, he became permanently disabled and was not able to discharge his job and under different heads claim for compensation was made.

3. Original non - applicant No. 1, driver of the vehicle, Sanjeev Kumar Sonwani, remained ex parte. Owner of the vehicle Taru Kumar Pandey refuted the averments of the claim petition and contended that at the time of accident the driver was having valid and effective licence. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., original non - applicant No. 3 and compensation, if any, insurance company was liable to pay the same. The insurance company too denied the averments of the petition and stated that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective licence and, therefore, there was a breach of policy. He further contended that because of such breach of policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable to make good the payment.

4. Claims Tribunal after assessment of the evidence came to a finding that at the relevant time the offending vehicle, i.e., pickup van was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. There is no appeal to such finding. In absence of any challenge to the same, the said finding of rash and negligent driving by the driver of pickup van is affirmed. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the following compensation which is as under.

5. Being aggrieved by such award, appeal was preferred by Roop Singh Baghel, the injured. During the pendency of the appeal, original claimant Roop Singh Baghel died and his legal heirs were brought on record, i.e., mother and father. It is not established that the death of the original claimant Roop Singh Baghel who was injured in the accident was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is not in dispute that legal heirs, i.e., mother and father who have been substituted in the appeal were not the injured. Now the question comes for consideration as to whether appeal would abate as the claim was preferred by Roop Singh Baghel deceased for his personal injury in the accident and as to whether legal heirs of the claimant would be entitled to continue the appeal.

6. The expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). S.2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) defines 'legal representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate