Madras High Court
The Managing Director, Pandiyan ... vs S. Rajalakshmi And Four Others on 8 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)CTC528
ORDER
1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputhur, in M.C.O. P.No. 675 of 1994. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal.
2. According to the claimant he was aged 60 years old at the time of the accident and he was free from any ailments. He was a good agriculturist and having vast extent of wet and punja lands in Kamarajar District. His monthly income is not less than Rs.1500. On 8.11.1988 at about 4.15 p.m. he was travelling alongwith his relatives in an Ambassador car bearing registration No.TDT 2455 from Kalingapatti to Appaya Naickenpatti and the driver of the first respondent was keeping his left side of road from south to north. At that time, the driver of the first respondent vehicle bearing registration No.TML No.6312 came in a very rash and negligent manner. He came in a terrific speed without sounding horn and dashed against the Ambassador Car TDT 2455. As a result of the collision, the claimant and other inmates of the car sustained severe injuries all over the body and car was also heavily damaged.
The driver of the first respondent was the sole cause of the accident. The injured passengers were taken to the hospital at Thiruvenkadam, and from there they were taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. The claimant was having some pain in his neck and hip and he is liable to move due to dislocation of femur. There was also a fracture and the femur on the head which was dislocated. He was taking treatment for a very long time at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and he was taking treatment from private clinics. After the accident, he was not able to do any work because of the permanent disability. The claimant had made a total claim of Rs. 1,00,000.
3. In the counter filed by the respondent, the manner of the accident as stated in the Claim Petition was denied. The bus was proceeding at a moderate speed and when the vehicle was nearing Appayanaickenpatti curve road, the driver of the bus sounded horn and slowed down the vehicle and drove the vehicle only at 15 k.m. power hour. At that time there was drizzling in that area and in spite of all his best efforts, fie was unable to avoid colliding with the car bearing registration No.TDT 2455 which came at the centre of the road at a very high speed and dashed against the left side of the first respondent's bus. The accident was purely due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Ambassador car.
4. In the counter filed by the Insurance Company also the manner of accident as well as the quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimant was disputed.
5. On a consideration of the said contentions and the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and a sum of Rs.30,000 was awarded as compensation. Hence, the present appeal.
6. As far as the question of negligence is concerned, with reference to the other claim petitions filed by other passengers in C.M.A.No.938 to 940 of 1995 this Court has already held that the findings of the Tribunal in the context of negligence was correct and did not warrant any interference. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the question of negligence in the present appeal.
7. The only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the legal representatives of the claimant are entitled to the entire compensation awarded in favour of the claimant. After the filing of the claim petition, since the claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal itself, the legal representatives of the claimant were impleaded as parties.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the death of the claimant was not due to the accident and as such the legal representatives of the claimant were not entitled to be compensated in respect of the personal injuries suffered by the deceased claimant. Reference is made to a judgment of K.Venkataswami , J. as he then was, in Pushpam v. Nirmala and another, C.R.P.No.2307 OF 1988, dated 3.1.1991. In that case, after analysing the earlier decisions, the learned Judge had observed that there was a distinction between a case of death over which the legal representatives could maintain a claim for compensation and the case of the personal injuries suffered by the claimant.
9. In this context I have also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Melapurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair, and M.Veerappa v. Evelyn Segulira, . A Division Bench of this Court has also held in C.P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores, 1974 A.C.J. 362, that in the case of an injured claimant the cause of action will not survive in respect of the legal representatives of the claimant. In all the above decisions, the Division Bench as well as the Supreme Court had taken note of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and have held that claim for compensation in respect of personal injuries will not be available for the legal representatives provided the death was not caused as a result of the accident. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the position would be different if the suit for damages had resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff in which case the decree amount would form part of the estate of the deceased to which the legal representatives would be entitled to. But where no such decree has been passed, the legal representatives of the claimant will not be entitled to compensation due towards personal injuries are concerned.
10. Therefore, I have no other alternative except to allow the appeal in so far as the amount which has been awarded towards personal injuries. The legal representatives of the claimants would be entitled only to be compensated as regards the actual expenses incurred by claimant for his treatment. In this context, in the claim petition, a sum of Rs.18,000 is claimed towards expenses with reference to medicines and medical charges including for Doctors and for the attenders. Therefore, the respondents herein would be entitled to only a sum of Rs.18,000.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is restricted to Rs.18,000 only with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition. No costs.