PRAVABATI GHOSH Vs. GAUTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATISH Chandra Ghosh (since deceased) made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, 'the MV Act') seeking an award for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, the injuries being, inter alia, multiple fracture of his right leg. The said injured died, on 18. 12. 2000, the death having, however, not been caused due to the injuries sustained by the said deceased in the accident aforementioned. On his death, the present petitioners, as legal representatives of the said deceased sought for being substituted in place of the said deceased as claimants. On the ground that in the case of personal injury, no right to sue survives, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, passed an order, on 5. 7. 2001, rejecting the prayer made by the present petitioner for substitution. It is this order, which stands impugned in the present revision made under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. T. K. Dey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE question raised in the present revision is very significant, the question being thus: Having presented an application under Section 166 or Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the MV Act'), claiming compensation not only for the personal injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, but also for compensation towards expenses incurred for treatment, loss of income, etc. , if a claimant dies during the pendency of the claim proceeding, whether his legal representatives can be substituted and brought on record and whether such legal representatives can continue with the proceedings if the claimant's death was not caused in consequence of the injuries sustained by him but for some other cause?