Whether dependents of the injured claimant who died hisnatural death during the pendency of the claim petition are entitled to get any amount of compensation:

 

Whether dependents of the injured claimant who died hisnatural death during the pendency of the claim petition are entitled to get any amount of compensation:

 

Maxim “Actio Personalis MoriturcumPersona” is applicable

in such cases. Even provisions of Section 306 (along with

Illustrations) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 would apply. In

the cases of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das & Ors.,

reported in 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 15, relying on the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Melepurath

Sankunni Ezuthassan v/s Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported

in 1986 (1) SCC 118, and the case of M. Veerappa v/s Evelyn

Sequeria & Ors., reported in 1988 (1) SCC 556, has held in

paragraph 8 of the judgment thus:“

the right to sue will not survive in favour of his

representatives, for, in such an appeal, what the legal

representatives of such a claimant would be doing is to ask for

compensation and the right to ask for compensation to be

awarded does not survive if the claimant dies before the claim

for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour, the

cause of death not being the injuries sustained by the deceased

claimant”.

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jenabai wd/o

Abdulkarim Musa v/s GSRTC, reported in 1991 GLR 352 and

in the case of Surpalsing Gohil vs. Raliyatbahen M savlia,

reported in 2009(2) GLH 217 has taken a different view and

has held that Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and

maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona is not applicable

in its widest sense in an accident causing injuries to a victim.

5.5.3. Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, in a

reference namely, Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel v/s Joseph

Francis Mewan, reported in 2015 (2) GLH 499 has held that

in case where injured dies natural death, claim petition does

not abate and his/her L.R. can continue with the claim

petition but same shall be confined only so far as loss to

estate is concerned which includes personal expenses

incurred on the treatment by original claimant.  After the above referred reference case was placed before the Ld. Single Judge for deciding the amount of compensation. In the final order dated 15^th December, 2015 passed in First Appeal No.1528 of 2009 it

has been observed as under...

“Applying such principles in the case on hand, I may notice that the claimant was engaged in the business of selling waste cloth and claimed to be earning Rs. 100/per day. She was aged about 45 years. Even without granting future rise in income on such uncertain business, her income could be safely adopted at Rs. 3000/per month. Applying agreed disability of 20%, her monthly loss of income would be Rs. 600/or Rs. 7200/per annum. She survived for 11 years post accident. The claimants would, therefore, receive additional compensation of Rs. 79,200/towards

Future loss of income till her death. Such amount shall be paid with simple interest @8% from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. R & P to be transmitted back to the Trial Court”.

Meaning thereby, the Gujarat High Court has not only awarded compensation to the Lrs of the deceased under the head of Loss of Income but also under the other conventional heads also.

 After considering the ratio laid down by the various High

Court and ratio laid down in the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v/s. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon, Civil Appeal 4800 of 2021, dated 16th August, 2021 has held that the loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.

Legal Representative married daughter and sister filed four claim

petitions as LRs of her father, mother, brother and sister in law –

whether such claim petitions are maintainable? Held ; yes

but she is entitled to get amount u/s 140 and funeral expenses only. Please refer to 2017 ACJ 234 (Guj).

But also see 2018 ACJ 1057 (Mad) also see 2018 ACJ 1083 (Mad)

Abrogation of Right – death of the mother (Claimant) of the

deceased during pendency of the claim petition – she did not have any dependent Whether in such situation her right to claim

compensation abrogated? Held ; No.

It is further held that in such situation Tribunal is not required to calculate compensation on the basis of the age of the mother. Please refer to the judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 192 (Ker).

5.8 Wife and Son of Driver Owner died in the accident – in the said accident Driver owner also died whether in such situation claim petition is maintainable against IC without joining the Driver owner? Held ; Yes.

2017 ACJ 688 (Del).

 Driver & Owner died before the reply could be filed in the claim

petition – Tribunal deleted the said opponent as his LRs have not

been joined – Whether such order is sustainable? Held ; No.

As Section 155 of the MV Act would apply and CPC dealing with

abatement would not apply. 2016 ACJ 1554 (HP)

 When injured has failed to prove the relevant record before the

Medical Board for assessing percentage of disability, in such case

no compensation can be awarded under the head of the loss of

future earnings. Sanjay Kumar v/s. Sunil, 200 ACJ 718 (SC)

 

What should be the enhancement for future prospect in the cases where injured suffered 100% functional disability:

In the case of Rajan v/s Soly Sebastian, reported in 2015 (10) SCC 506, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a professional like Driver suffers Permanent Partial Disability (100% functional disability), 50% enhancement for future prospect is required to be made.