1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 02.04.2007 passed by the 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 83/2006. The appeal seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground of inadequacy.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant, Jani Ahuja, expired on 03.06.2010. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased claimant was substituted as the appellant/claimant in the present appeal.

3. The date of the accident, the issue of negligence, and the liability of the respondents are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on these aspects are not under challenge.

4. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,54,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned Award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to settled principles of law and suffers from serious errors of appreciation. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. It is contended that there is ample evidence on record to prove that the death was result of accident, however, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in lower side in the heads of medical expense, special diet, pain & suffering, attendant, transportation etc. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned Award be modified suitably, and just and reasonable compensation be awarded by reassessing the income and other relevant heads.

6. It is further submitted that no deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been made, as the deceased claimant had actually incurred expenses during his lifetime. The injured had suffered 100% permanent physical disability and was rendered incapable of pursuing his career or leading a normal life. It was contended that the claimant was a skilled labourer and the compensation deserved enhancement not merely on account of injuries, but also towards loss of estate.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the impugned Award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. It is further contended that since the claimant expired during the pendency of the appeal due to causes not related to the accident, the substituted legal heir is entitled only to compensation towards pecuniary loss forming part of the estate of the deceased. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Bhagwati Bai & Anr. Vs. Bablu @ Mukund and Ors., reported in 2007(1) MPHT 25.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company further contended that cause of action being personal to the injured abates on his death, which was not caused due to the accident. The legal heir is entitled only to such compensation which forms part of the estate of the deceased. Loss of salary, future prospects, pain & suffering along with attendant charges do not form part of the estate of the deceased. The compensation could not have been fixed by application of multiplier as it was not a case of death caused or occasioned by or due to the accident. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal would alone form part of the estate of the deceased. It is further contended that appellant being a mother is not entitled to any claim for any other loss of estate of the deceased. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

10. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kahlon (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.2873/2021), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

          "9. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1)

          (a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured.

          What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has to engage our attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries.

          10. In Umed Chand (supra), giving a broad liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Act so that legal representatives do not suffer injustice, it was observed that the claim for personal injuries will not survive on death of the injured unrelated to the accident but the legal representatives could pursue the claim for enhancement of the claim for loss of the estate which would include expenditure on medical expenses, travelling, attendant, diet, doctor's fee and reasonable monthly annual accretion to the estate for a certain period. It is trite that the income which a person derives compositely forms part of the expenditure on himself, his family and the savings go to the estate. The unforeseen expenses as aforesaid naturally have to be met from the estate causing pecuniary loss to the estate.

          11. In Maimuna Begum (supra) the defence under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the old English Common Law maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" was rejected opining that it would be unjust to non−suit the heirs on that ground.

          12. In Venkatesan (supra), the injured claimant preferred an appeal dissatisfied, but was deceased during the pendency of the appeal. Compensation came to be awarded under the Act for loss of estate keeping in mind the nature of the injuries, the treatment, the expenditure incurred and loss of income.

          13. In Surpal Singh (supra), Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J. (as he then was), observed that the Act was a social welfare legislation providing for compensation by award to people who sustain bodily injuries or get killed. The grant of compensation had to be expeditious as procedural technicalities could not be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the act. The Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfils the policy of the legislation favorable to those in whose interest the Act has been passed. Judicial discipline demanded that the words of a remedial statutes be construed so far as they reasonably admit so as to secure that relief contemplated by the statute and it shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved. Rejecting the maxim of "actio personalis moritur cum persona" on the premise that it was an injury done to the person and the claim abated with his demise it was observed:

          "11. The question as to whether injury was personal or otherwise is of no significance so far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is obliged to make good the loss sustained by the injured. Legal heirs and legal representatives would have also suffered considerable mental pain and agony due to the accident caused to their kith and kin. Possibly they might have looked after their dear ones in different circumstances, which cannot be measurable in monetary terms. We are therefore in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) that even after death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives."

          14. This view has subsequently been followed in a decision authored by brother Justice M.R. Shah J., (as he then was) in Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs. Joseph Francis Mewan and Others, 2015 (2) GLH 499, holding as follows:

          "12....Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil (supra); decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jenabai Widow of Abdul Karim Musa (supra) and in the case of Amrishkumar Vinodbhai (supra); and aforesaid two decisions of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, we are of the opinion that maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" on which Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right to sue survive to his heirs and legal representatives in so far as loss to the estate is concerned, which would include personal expenses incurred on the treatment and other claim related to loss to the estate. Under the circumstances, the issue referred to the Division Bench is answered accordingly. Consequently, it is held that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in permitting the heirs to be brought on record of the claim petition and permitting the heirs of the injured claimant who died subsequently to proceed further with the claim petition. However, the claim petition and even appeal for enhancement would be confine to the claim for the loss to the estate as observed hereinabove."

          15. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joti Ram vs. Chamanlal, AIR 1985 P&H 2 and the Madras High Court in Thailammai vs. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185 (Mad).

          16. The view taken in Kanamma (supra) and Uttam Kumar (supra) that the claim would abate is based on a narrow interpretation of the Act which does not commend to us. The reasoning of the Gujarat High Court is more in consonance with aim, purpose and spirit of the Act and furthers its real intent and purpose which we therefore approve."

11. On examination of the record and the impugned Award, it is found that the Claims Tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the claimant (since deceased) at 100%. Though it was contended that the claimant was earning Rs.5,500/- per month at the time of the accident, no documentary evidence or income certificate was produced to substantiate the said claim. Considering paragraphs 54 and 55 of the impugned Award, the assessment of monthly income at Rs.2,500/- by the Claims Tribunal appears to be reasonable and does not warrant interference.

12. With regard to loss of income including future prospects, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimant is entitled to addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, 40% is required to be added. Further, as per Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , considering the age of the claimant, the appropriate multiplier would be 18.

13. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.25,000/- each towards special diet and transportation, and Rs.2,04,000/- towards attendant charges. In the considered opinion of this Court, an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deserves to be awarded under these heads.

14. Accordingly, the appellant/substituted claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads:



15. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.15,00,000/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal o f Rs.10,54,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,46,000/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

16. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,46,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

17. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.

18. In view of above, miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of.