MAHARANI DEY Vs. DEBABRATA BARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is made under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dt. 7-3-79 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Title Suit No. 7 of 1974 rejecting the praver of the petitioners who wanted to be substituted in place of the deceased claimant. The predecessoring-interest of the etitioner (Rebati Mohan Dey since deceased, was knocked down in accident wherein he was injured by the bus belonging to the opposite party No. 1. Shri Debabrata Bardhan. This occurred on 18-11-73 as a result of which Rebati Mohan Dey sustained a serious injury and his two legs had to be amputated. He filed a claim petition in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for such injury to the extent of Rupees 40,000 and impleaded the owner of the bus as opposite party No. 1 and the New India Assurance Company as opposite party No. 2 in the said claim application. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant Rebati Mohan Dey having died, the present petitioners being the legal heirs and representatives, made an application for substitution of their names in place of the deceased claimant. The petitioners wanted that they should be allowed to continue the litigation as cause of action survives and they are necessary parties to be treated as claimants being the surviving legal representatives of Rebati Mohan Dey. The learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected their prayer on the ground that the action brought by Rebati Mohan was purely a personal one and the cause of action does not survive on his death. Therefore, the subject-matter of the present litigation was ended at that end on dismissal of the claim petition by the order dt. 7-3-79. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this application.

(2.) MR . A.M. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the approach of the learned Tribunal that it was a personal cause and it does not survive on his death to the legal representatives to continue the action, is absolutely untenable in law and the impugned order as such, is liable to be quashed.

(3.) HOWEVER , in the said case the precise point for determination was, as to whether the claimant is entitled to get interest on the claimed amount as awarded by the Tribunal. We duly analysed the matter keeping in view the provisions of C.P.C. and the power that may be exercised by the Civil Court in awarding interest. Therefore, in view of the above decision, it remains without any doubt that the prayer for substitution is entertainable in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.