IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision.:07.03.2026 Krishan Bha.a and Others …..Appellants Vs. Virender Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harshit Kataria, Advocate and Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Jyotsna Saini, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the legal representa+ves of the original claimant–injured Smt. Shashi Bala Bha+a challenging the award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby the claim pe++on filed under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed on the ground that the right to sue did not survive a7er the death of the claimant. 2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudica+on of the present appeal, are that on 21.01.1997, Smt. Shashi Bala was travelling on a scooter along with her husband, who was driving the vehicle, while she was riding as a pillion passenger. They were proceeding towards Ajronda. When they reached near Sunflag Hospital, a Maru+ Van bearing registra+on No. DDA- 3225, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, allegedly came from the opposite direc+on and collided with the scooter. As a result NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -2- of the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala sustained serious injuries and was admi=ed to Sunflag Hospital, where she remained hospitalized +ll 31.01.1997. Therea7er, also she con+nued to remain under medical treatment. 3. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, Smt. Shashi Bala filed a claim pe++on under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 07.04.1997 seeking compensa+on. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the said pe++on, she expired on 10.09.1998. An applica+on was moved for bringing on record her legal representa+ves, which was allowed by the Tribunal. 4. However, respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company therea7er moved an applica+on contending that since the claim pe++on had been filed for personal injuries, the right to sue did not survive upon the death of the claimant and the pe++on stood abated. Accep+ng the said conten+on, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim pe++on vide the impugned award dated 20.03.1999, holding that the claim for personal injuries did not survive a7er the death of the injured claimant. 5.1 Assailing the above order of the Tribunal, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the legal representa+ves of deceased Smt. Shashi Bala, contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the pe++on solely on the ground of the death of the claimant. It is argued that the appellants had specifically pleaded that the death of Smt. Shashi Bala occurred on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and they ought to have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the said plea. It is further contended that even assuming that the appellants ul+mately fail to establish a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the claimant, the claim pe++on could s+ll survive to the extent of loss to the estate, which would include medical expenses, loss of income and other pecuniary losses suffered by the estate of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -3- deceased. 5.2 Learned counsel submits that at the most, the claim under the head of pain and suffering, being purely personal in nature, may abate upon the death of the claimant. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representa ve Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another (2022) 13 SCC 494, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jo Ram and others vs. Chaman Lal and others, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Insurance Company fairly submits that the legal proposi+on laid down in the aforesaid judgments cannot be disputed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the par+es and perused the record. 8. The principal ques+on that arises for considera+on is whether a claim pe++on filed by an injured person under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act abates upon the death of the claimant during pendency of the proceedings. 9. The issue is no longer res integra. In Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined this ques+on in detail and held that although the claim for compensa+on rela+ng to personal injuries may not survive if the death of the claimant is unrelated to the accident, the claim to the extent of loss caused to the estate of the deceased would survive to the legal representa+ves. The Court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legisla+on, and therefore, the provisions rela+ng to compensa+on must receive a liberal and purposive interpreta+on so as to advance the object of the statute. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -4- 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that expenses incurred towards treatment, medical charges, transporta+on, a=endant charges and other pecuniary losses suffered by the injured person cons+tute loss to the estate, and the legal representa+ves of the deceased claimant are en+tled to pursue the claim to that extent. It was further held that the defence based on the common law maxim “aco personalis moritur cum persona”, embodied in Sec+on 306 of the Indian Succession Act, cannot be applied in a rigid manner so as to defeat legi+mate claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, par+cularly where the estate of the deceased claimant has suffered pecuniary loss on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also no+ced the judgments of various High Courts, including the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jo Ram vs. Chaman Lal (supra), wherein it was held that although the claim for damages rela+ng purely to personal pain and suffering may not survive a7er the death of the injured claimant, the claim rela+ng to loss to the estate, such as medical expenses and other pecuniary losses, would survive to the legal representa+ves. 12. Thus, the se=led legal posi+on that emerges is that where an injured claimant dies during the pendency of proceedings, two situa+ons may arise. Firstly, if the legal representa+ves are able to establish that the death of the injured occurred as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claim pe++on can be pursued as one for compensa+on arising out of the death of the vic+m. Secondly, even if the death is ul+mately found to be unrelated to the accident, the legal representa+ves would nevertheless be en+tled to con+nue the claim to the extent of loss to the estate, which would include medical expenses, loss of income during the period of treatment and other pecuniary losses suffered by the estate of the deceased. 13. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid legal posi+on, the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -5- approach adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal dismissed the claim pe++on solely on the ground that the injured claimant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and that the right to sue did not survive. In doing so, the Tribunal failed to consider that the legal representa+ves of the deceased claimant were en+tled, at the very least, to pursue the claim under the head of loss to the estate, and also to establish, if so advised, that the death of the claimant was a=ributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. 14. Furthermore, the appellants were not afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their plea that the death of Smt. Shashi Bala occurred due to the accidental injuries. Such an opportunity ought to have been granted, par+cularly when the Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legisla+on intended to provide just and fair compensa+on to vic+ms of road accidents and their families. 15. In these circumstances, the impugned award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 16. Consequently, the impugned award dated 20.03.1999 is hereby set aside. The ma=er is remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, with a direc+on to restore the claim pe++on to its original number and afford adequate opportunity to the appellants–legal representa+ves of the deceased claimant to lead evidence in support of their claim. The Tribunal shall examine whether the death of Smt. Shashi Bala was a=ributable to the injuries sustained in the accident and determine the en+tlement of the appellants to compensa+on accordingly. In the alterna+ve, the Tribunal shall also assess the compensa+on payable under the heads falling within the ambit of loss to the estate, in accordance with law. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1774-2000 (O&M) -6- 17. Since the ma=er pertains to an accident, which occurred in the year 1997, it is desirable that the proceedings are concluded expedi+ously. Accordingly, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the claim pe++on preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a cer+fied copy of this order. 18. A copy of this order be transmi=ed to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who shall ensure that the ma=er is taken up and disposed of within the aforesaid +me frame. 19. The par+es, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad on 16.03.2026. 20. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 21. All pending miscellaneous applica+on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 07, 2026 Nee+ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.09 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document