S VYKUNTAM Vs. G NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vykuntam, the petitioner im O.P.No.231/89 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, challenged the order dated 28-12-1990 being aggrieved of the granting of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only instead of granting Rs.40,000/- for injuries sustained by him. The said petitioner - the appellant who preferred thiis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, died pending appeal and appellants 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased - sole appellant in C.M.P.No.20403/2003 dt.4-11- 2003 and thus the said legal representatives are further prosecuting the litigation at present.

(2.) Sri Bheemsen, the learned Counsel representing the appellants would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience) is on the lower side and the compensation as prayed for could have been awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the legal representatives of an injured can further prosecute this litigation since it is a loss to the estate of the deceased and hence despite the fact that the original injured is no more and died during the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the same may not come in the way of granting enhancement of compensation by this Court. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge and would point out that the approach adopted by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be justifiable. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

(3.) Per contra, Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing R.3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited would maintain that in such cases after the death of the injured, the cause of action does not survive and the legal representatives are not entitled to further prosecute the litigation. The learned Counsel also would submit that at any rate such awarding of compensation cannot be beyond the life time of the injured. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the evidence available on record, inasmuch as the injury is only simple injury, the granting of compensation by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.