1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Amreli, in M.A.C.P. No. 493 of 1996 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,22,500/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 20.10.1996 at around 0300 hours, while Pravinsinh was going towards his house at that time, truck bearing registration no. GRX 4825, on account of rash and negligent manner, dashed with Pravinsinh, as a result of which, Pravinsinh sustained severe bodily injuries. Later on he filed, the claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal. .
3. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that he deals with only one issue that is whether the heirs of deceased are able to prove that deceased died due to accidental injuries.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record from which it could be concluded that the injuries were sustained by the deceased in the accident in question which ultimately, culminated into his death. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Amishkumar Vinodbhai and others reported in 1996 (3) GLR 212, wherein, it has been held in Para14 as under:
“14. Since the aim of award of damages is to compensate the person wronged there is no reason why measure of damages pertaining to estate should be in any way affected or limited by the death of the original victim of the accident. The maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” is considerably abrogated by the judicial pronouncements. The scope of the provisions of Section 306 of the Succession Act and the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” 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. The claim regarding loss caused to the estate would include several items such as medical expenses, miscellaneous expenses, actual loss of income from the date of injuries till the death of the injured etc. But for the injuries sustained, the injured would not have been required to incur the said expenses nor would have suffered actual loss of income. Therefore, even after the death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and the right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives.”
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was originally filed by the deceased. The Tribunal has assessed 35% permanent partial disability as a body as a whole. However, There is no evidence on record to show that deceased died due to accidental injuries. No P. M. Note is produced by the claimants. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to accidental injuries. There is no nexus between death and injuries. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in the above decision, the claimants shall be entitled for income only under the head of loss of estate and the claimants shall not be entitled for income under the head of future loss.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
7. In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/