V MEPHERSON Vs. SHIV CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiv Charan, injured filed cross objections claiming therein that he suffered serious injuries on account of accident caused to him. Injuries were, compound fracture of both bones middle third leg, colle's fracture of right side fore-arm fracture of 5th and 6th ribs and multiple wounds in scalp and multiple injuries all over the body. He spent nearly Rs.l0,000.00 on treatment, medicines, special diet, conveyance, attendant etc. He also claimed future expenses to be incurred on recovery and support. This made a total claim of Rs.One lac as per his compensation claimed. The Motor Accident Claims Tri- bunal (In short the Tribunal) by the impugned award granted him only Rs.7,110.00 with costs and interest. This included the expenses on medicine, special diet, fees of the doctor, petrol charges and damages. The grievance of the objector had been, that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the expenses incurred by him and the damages awarded was too inadequate in law.

(2.) These objections were contested by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that so far as the claim on account of reimbursement of expenses on medicine, special diet, conveyance and doctor's fees are concerned no proof was laid before the Court. The Tribunal still awarded the amounts on presumption. Similarly, general damages were assessed by the Court to be Rs.5,000.00 . This Court now in cross objections cannot enhance damages because the objector has since expired during the pendency of this appeal. The personal damages are not inheritable. Hence the right to sue enhanced damages does not survive after the death of the injured. In this regard counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in re Sampati Lal & Ors. V. Hari Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1985 Rajasthan 174, which was also a case under the Motor Vehicle Act.. In that case claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court opined that the claim on account of personal damages did not survive in view of Section 306 of the Successions Act. Only claim relating to loss to the estate did survive. In the present case admittedly, the death was not due to the accident which was caused on 18th september,1973. The objector died during the pendency of the appeal on 17th August,1983. Hence, Mr.Tarun Johri's contention that the claim for enhancement of general damages after the death of the objector did not survive appears to be right. As regards other claims regarding medical expenses expenses on special diet, doctor's fees and conveyance, Mr.Johri contended even those are also personal in nature, therefore, the objection petition is not maintainable after the death of the injured.

(3.) So far as the contention of Mr.Tarun Johri that claim for damages which was on account of suffering and pain suffered by the deceased, to my mind, it would abet on the death of the injured. But so far as other claims under other heads those would not come to an end on the death of the objector. The right to sue would survive even on the death of the objector. As a matter of fact claim on account of special diet, medicine, conveyance etc. are such which related to the loss of the property, therefore, right to sue would not abet on the death of the objector. It would survive to his legal heirs as held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Joti Ram and Ors. V. Chaman Lal and Ors. AIR 1985 Punjab & Haryana page 2.