T M KALIAPPAN Vs. P K MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P. No: 47 of 2002 [M.C.O.P. No: 114 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam] by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The case of the parties before the lower Court are briefly stated as follows: "(i) On 09.08.1999 at 8.00 a.m. the 1st claimant and his son's father-in-law were travelling in a TVS-50 bearing registration No: TN-36 B-0887. The 1st claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. When the TVS 50 was coming from north to south in the Coimbatore - Mysore Highway, the bus belonging to the 2nd respondent bearing registration No: TN-33 0701 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the TVS 50. The 1st claimant fell down and the right side wheel of the bus ran over the right leg of the 1st claimant. He was hospitalised at Sathyamangalam Government Hospital and Coimbatore Ganga Hospital and various surgeries were performed on him. The 1st claimant suffered a permanent disbaility. Before the accident he was doing agricultural work in about 12 acre land. He spent a huge sum towards his treatment. On 05.11.2001, the 1s claimant died leaving behind claimants 2 to 5 as his legal representatives. Hence, the respondents were liable to compensate for the loss caused due to his death and for loss of love and affection at a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. (ii) The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the allegations are all false. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TVS 50. It was not caused due to the mistake of the respondents. The genuinity of the age, business, income and the nature of injuries suffered by the 1st claimant are not proved. The compensation claimed is very much on the higher side. Since, the cause of the accident is the person who drove the TVS 50 and in the absence of the claimant not including the owner, driver and insurer of the TVS 50, this claim petition itself is not maintainable and hence, the claim petition may be rejected. "

(2.) THE lower Court, after going through all the materials made available before it, including oral and documentary evidence, had awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for the loss of life of the 1st petitioner, who died during the pendency of the claim petition, because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, against a claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. THE appellants are the claimants 2 to 5 before the lower Court and the legal representatives of the deceased 1st claimant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit in his argument that the 1st claimant had met with an accident and had sustained grievous injuries and he had also undergone treatment for those injuries and for the disability caused thereon he had filed the claim petition. During the pendency of the same, he died and claimants 2 to 5 were ordered to be impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st claimant. He would further submit that the claimants 2 to 5, being the L.Rs. of the deceased 1st claimant, are not entitled to any amount towards pain and suffering and for permanent disability caused to the 1st claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident since those amounts were spent by the 1st claimant purely for his personal inconvenience and it would not become the estate of the deceased / 1st claimant. He would further insist in his argument that the maxim namely "actio personalis moritur cum persona" would squarely apply to the case on hand. THE personal claim of the 1st claimant dies with him and, therefore, the award of compensation at Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering and disability sustained by the 1st claimant is not valid in law. He would request the Court to modify the award passed by the lower Court in accordance with law.