Compensation for pain and suffering is personal to the injured and cannot be claimed by dependents after death; disability compensation is not applicable if the injured dies from unrelated causes.

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of respondents 1 to 3/claimants.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased claimant was standing on the left hand side of the Pallipalayam-Sangagiri Main Road on 29.08.2009. The Maruti Omni van, belonged to the 4^th respondent insured with the appellant driven by the 5^th respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the injured claimant. As a result of the accident, he got fracture on the left acetabular roof, fracture on left superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture on left shaft of left radius left forearm and injury on head. It is also stated that initially, the claim petition was filed by the injured seeking compensation for the injury suffered by him. Pending claim petition, he died and his legal representatives namely wife and children were brought on record.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company denying involvement of the vehicle insured with it.

4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Omni van insured with the Appellant Insurance Corporation and fixed liability on the Appellant as well as the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.5,00,000/- Aggrieved by the quantum, the insurance company has come before this court.

5. Though the contesting respondents 1 to 3/claimants were served and their names appear in the list, there is no representation for them.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that the victim died subsequently due to some other reason, the Tribunal committed an error in granting Rs.3,00,000/- under the head disability. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the heads pain and suffering and loss of estate are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head nutritional expenses is on the higher side.

8. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that though the victim suffered grievous injuries in the nature of fractures described above, there was no evidence available on record to show he died due to injuries. In such circumstances, the Tribunal treated the case as the claim for injuries and passed the award. When the victim is not alive, the Tribunal ought not have granted any amount under the head pain and suffering. The compensation under the head pain and suffering is personal to the person who suffered injuries and the dependents of the said person are not entitled to compensation under the said head. Hence, the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is set aside. When the person who suffered injury is died of some other reason, the dependents are not entitled to claim any amount under the head disability. Had he been alive, the disability suffered by him would have had an impact on his earning capacity and hence, compensation shall be awarded under the head loss of earning due to disability. In the case on hand, subsequent to the accident, the injured died due to some other reason. In these circumstances, the tribunal was not justified in granting Rs.3,00,000/- under the head disability. However, the estate of the deceased is entitled to compensation under the head loss of earning during treatment period. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 29.08.2009. The victim died on 10.01.2011. The medical documents namely Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, discharge summaries, produced by the claimants were dated 03-09-2009 and 14-09-2009. Therefore, it is clear that the injured claimant was