A claim petition for personal injuries does not abate upon the claimant's death regarding 'loss to the estate' (pecuniary losses/medical expenses) or if the death resulted from the accident, as the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation intended to ensure just compensation.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original claimant–injured Smt. Shashi Bala Bhatia challenging the award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed on the ground that the right to sue did not survive after the death of the claimant.

2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, are that on 21.01.1997, Smt. Shashi Bala was travelling on a scooter along with her husband, who was driving the vehicle, while she was riding as a pillion passenger. They were proceeding towards Ajronda. When they reached near Sunflag Hospital, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. DDA 3225, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, allegedly came from the opposite direction and collided with the scooter. As a result of the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Sunflag Hospital, where she remained hospitalized till 31.01.1997. Thereafter, also she continued to remain under medical treatment.

3. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 07.04.1997 seeking compensation. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the said petition, she expired on 10.09.1998. An application was moved for bringing on record her legal representatives, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

4. However, respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company thereafter moved an application contending that since the claim petition had been filed for personal injuries, the right to sue did not survive upon the death of the claimant and the petition stood abated. Accepting the said contention, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned award dated 20.03.1999, holding that the claim for personal injuries did not survive after the death of the injured claimant.

5.1 Assailing the above order of the Tribunal, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Shashi Bala, contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition solely on the ground of the death of the claimant. It is argued that the appellants had specifically pleaded that the death of Smt. Shashi Bala occurred on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and they ought to have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the said plea. It is further contended that even assuming that the appellants ultimately fail to establish a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the claimant, the claim petition could still survive to the extent of loss to the estate, which would include medical expenses, loss of income and other pecuniary losses suffered by the estate of the

deceased.

5.2 Learned counsel submits that at the most, the claim under the head of pain and suffering, being purely personal in nature, may abate upon the death of the claimant. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another (2022) 13