Claims for loss of estate survive the death of the injured, allowing legal representatives to pursue compensation for incurred expenses, emphasizing the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. The appellants, who are the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased claimant Nandu Ram, are preferring this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi2, being aggrieved that the learned Tribunal has denied them just and fair compensation since the claimant died during the proceedings/trial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, the original claimant, namely Nandu Ram, met 1 Act 2 Tribunal with a motor accident on 25.08.2014 when he was hit by the offending jeep bearing registration No. HR-67A-4044 being driven by respondent No.1/Sohan Singh, which was registered in the name of respondents No. 2 and 3 and evidently, insured for “third party risks” with respondent No.4/United India Insurance Company Ltd. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT-CUM-AWARD:

3. The claimant/Nandu Ram suffered grievous injuries so much so that he has developed permanent disability to the extent of 58% in relation to his right upper and lower limb as per the Disability Certificate dated 09.12.2016 Ex.PW2/1 issued by the Medical Board of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

4. The claimant/Nandu Ram filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the Act.

Unfortunately, he passed away on 07.05.2021 on account of some natural causes during the course of the proceeding/trial before the learned Tribunal. While the learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 with regards to culpable rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent/driver in causing the accident in favour of the claimants, when it came to the quantum of compensation, the same was assessed as under:-

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR:

5. It appears that the learned Tribunal was of the view that since the claimant/injured had died during the course of the proceeding/trial, it was not enjoined upon to consider grant of compensation under other pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads which were personal to the deceased. Needless to say, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon respondent No.4/Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal is preferred seeking fair and just compensation, for which, heavy reliance is placed on a decision in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon 3 decided by the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at Bar and on perusal of the relevant record including the digitized Trial Court Record, at the outset, the impugned judgment-cum-award cannot be sustained in law and requires interference in this appeal to award just and reasonable compensation to the appellants.

7. In the cited case of The Oriental Insurance Company v. Kahlon (supra), in somewhat similar factual and circumstantial narrative, the Supreme Court considered the issue of grant of compensation to the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased claimant who had died during the course of the proceedings/trial. It would be relevant to refer to the observations by the Supreme Court which go as 3 (2022) 13 SCC 494 under:-

“9. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1) (a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss