Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orders.j. mukhopadhaya, a.c.j.1. this writ petition was preferred by satya narayan yadav for direction on respondents to fix his pension under the revised scale of pay and pay him the arrears of salary on revision of pay and the rest of the gratuity amount amounting to rs. 81,012/- the rest of the group insurance amount of rs. 50,000/-; leave encashment of rs. 20,000/- etc.2. when the case was taken up, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, satya narayan yadav, died after filing the present writ petition. he wanted to substitute his widow for grant of such benefit. however, as i find that the writ petition has already awaited and the widow, at first instance, requires to claim the benefit before the authority, instead of giving liberty to file as petition for substitution, the widow of satya narayan yadav is given liberty to approach the competent authority for death-cum-retrial benefits to which she is entitled. if any such representation is filed the competent authority is expected to decide the claim by a reasoned order and pay the admitted dues to the petitioner.3. the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Judgment:

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This writ petition was preferred by Satya Narayan Yadav for direction on respondents to fix his pension under the revised scale of pay and pay him the arrears of salary on revision of pay and the rest of the gratuity amount amounting to Rs. 81,012/- the rest of the Group Insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/-; leave encashment of Rs. 20,000/- etc.

2. When the case was taken up, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Satya Narayan Yadav, died after filing the present writ petition. He wanted to substitute his widow for grant of such benefit. However, as I find that the writ petition has already awaited and the widow, at first instance, requires to claim the benefit before the authority, instead of giving liberty to file as petition for substitution, the widow of Satya Narayan Yadav is given liberty to approach the competent authority for death-cum-retrial benefits to which she is entitled. If any such representation is filed the competent authority is expected to decide the claim by a reasoned order and pay the admitted dues to the petitioner.

3. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.