1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby he dismissed the cJaim application.
2. The Facts :--
Mangal Dass deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) against the respondents. He alleged that he received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the application, the claimant died on February 10, 1987 presumably as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. The widow and the children of the deceased moved an application for substituting them as applicant-claimants in place of the deceased. The application was contested and the Tribunal dismissed the application for substitution filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and also the claim application.
3. It is not clear on what grounds the Tribunal declined the application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased for substituting them as claimants in the claim application. It is also not clear on what basis he held that the right to sue does not survive. A person suing for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him under Section 110-A (1) of the Act can claim compensation for physical injury, mental sufferings including any expenses incurred for treatment. He can also claim damages towards loss to property consequent upon the accident. If the compensation is awardable in respect of some of the items resulting in loss to the property of theinjured person, there is no bar under Section 110-A(1) of the Act which prohibits a claim for compensation to be made in that behalf. The maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona cannot be invoked, if the accident instead of resulting in an injury resulted in the death of a person. The legal representatives can claim compensation for loss to the estate of the deceased. If an action is initiated by an injured person for compensation in respect of items which involve loss to his property why should it not survive to the legal representatives when he dies during the pendency of an action.
4. Reference can be usefully be made to a Bench decision rendered in F. A.C. No. 536 of 1979, Joti Ram v. Chaman Lal, decided on September 25, 1981 wherein it was held thus:--
'The scope of the provisions of S. 306, Indian Succession Act and the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, therefore, appears to be well-settled and the claim of damages on account of loss to the estate of the injured would not abate on his death.'
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set aside. The application moved by the legal representatives of the deceased for bringing them on record is allowed. They are allowed to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased claimant. The claim petition will be decided in the light of the aforementioned observations. The order under challenge is set aside. The claim petition will be revived and restored against its original number and will be disposed of on merits keeping in view the observations made above within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. Cost in appeal will abide by the event.
6. Appeal allowed.