1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.09.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.IV), Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C. Petition No. 217 of 1985 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and original claimants, were awarded Rs.9750/ as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2.0 The facts in brief are that on 22.12.1983 while one Indrajitsing Dilipsing Sandhu was going towards O.N.G.C. Dispensary for taking medicines on his bicycle, a Truck bearing registration No. GRS5691 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3Insurance Company, dashed the bicycle. As a result thereof, Indrajigsingh sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately, died during the pendency of the claim petition. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal. .
3.0 Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that he deals with only one issue 1A that whether heirs of deceased prove that deceased died due to accidental injuries.
4.0 Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned counsel for the appellant 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.”
4.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was originally filed by the deceased. Dr.Sukumar Mohini Mohoan Guha was examined by the claimants at Exh. 74. He had not stated that due to Pus formation injuries, the deceased died. In cross examination he had admitted that he could not say the age of the injuries for which deceased was treated by him. 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, deceased died due to pus formation. There is no nexus between death and injuries. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in the above decision, the appellantsclaimants 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.
6.0 For the foregoing reasons, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K. S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*