##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

101 FAO-1774-2000 (O&M)

Date of Decision.:07.03.2026

Krishan Bha.a and Others …..Appellants Vs.

Virender Singh and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Harshit Kataria, Advocate and Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate

for the appellants.

Ms. Jyotsna Saini, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for

respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been preferred by the legal representa+ves of the original claimant–injured Smt. Shashi Bala Bha+a challenging the award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby the claim pe++on filed under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed on the ground

that the right to sue did not survive a7er the death of the claimant.

2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudica+on 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 Maru+ Van bearing registra+on No. DDA- 3225, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, allegedly came from the opposite direc+on and collided with the scooter. As a result

1 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 21:26:58 :::

FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -2-

of the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala sustained serious injuries and was admi=ed to Sunflag Hospital, where she remained hospitalized +ll 31.01.1997. Therea7er, also she con+nued to remain under medical

treatment.

3. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala filed a claim pe++on under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 07.04.1997 seeking compensa+on. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the said pe++on, she expired on 10.09.1998. An applica+on was moved for bringing on record her legal representa+ves, which was allowed by the

Tribunal.

4. However, respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company therea7er moved an applica+on contending that since the claim pe++on had been filed for personal injuries, the right to sue did not survive upon the death of the claimant and the pe++on stood abated. Accep+ng the said conten+on, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim pe++on vide the impugned award dated 20.03.1999, holding that the claim for personal

injuries did not survive a7er 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 representa+ves of deceased Smt. Shashi Bala, contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the pe++on 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 ul+mately fail to establish a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the claimant, the claim pe++on could s+ll 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

2 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 21:26:59 :::

FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -3-

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 representa ve Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another (2022) 13 SCC 494, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jo Ram and others vs. Chaman Lal and others, AIR 19