@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rajendra Menon, J.
Even though this revision petition is admitted for hearing but considering the short question involved, it is being heard finally with the consent of parties.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 10-7-06 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashok Nagar, rejecting certain objections filed by the petitioner in an execution proceedings, the execution proceedings are pending with regard to recovery of certain amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ashok Nagar, in Claim Case No. 12/90. Petitioner Ramesh Chand claims to be the adopted son of Joharilal Jain.
One Parshuram s/o Narottam Prasad, died in motor accident. Death of Parshuram gave cause to filing of a claim case u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said case was registered as Claim Case No. 12/90 and apart from Narottam Prasad his wife Ramkunwar and another son Ramcharan Das were the claimants in the said proceedings. The claim was decreed and vide award dated 31-3-94 a sum of Rs. 70,100/- have been awarded. After award was passed records indicate that appeal was filed by Narottam Prasad, this appeal being M.A. No. 166/94 was dismissed by this Court and award passed was confirmed, on 22-3-05 after the order was passed in the appeal Narottam Prasad filed the present execution proceedings against the original owner of the vehicle Joharilal Jain. During the pendency of the execution proceedings both Narottam Prasad and Joharilal Jain have expired and their legal heirs were brought on record. Petitioner herein after the death of Joharilal Jain, so also his wife filed a objection under Sections 47 and 151, CPC inter alia contending that after death of Narottam Prasad his legal heirs are not entitled to maintain the claim, respondent No. 1 Gorabai who is daughter of Narottam Prasad is brought on record, inter alia contending that Gorabai is not entitled to receive the claim amount now after the death of Narottam Prasad, objection was filed, the objection is dismissed by the impugned order, and therefore, this appeal is filed. Shri Rajeev Jain, Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Section 6(dd) of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act submits that as the award made in favour of the Narottam Prasad is in the form of maintenance to Narottam Prasad, the same cannot be transferred and all rights which accrued to Narottam Prasad stand exhausted after his death and the legal heirs and survivors are not entitled to maintain any claim now against the present petitioner accordingly it is argued by Shri Jain that the award cannot be put to execution now after death of Narottam Prasad against the present petitioner. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the execution proceedings.
Refuting the aforesaid and inviting my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Having heard learned Counsel for parties and on considering rival contention, it is clear that the claim filed by Narottam Prasad was decreed in his favour and an award of Rs. 70,100/- was granted by the Claims Tribunal which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, accordingly the amount awarded become the estate of Narottam Prasad.
Estate of a deceased person consist of a bundle of powers, immunities and liabilities which survive even after his death, the question of maintainability of the claim after the injured person or claimant has died was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umedchand Golcha (supra) in the said case which was decided by a Division Bench, the question of law involved was "As to whether the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pertaining to personal injuries caused to a person survives even after his death and whether the legal representatives are entitled to maintain the. claim. The question was considered by a Division Bench and it has been held by a Division Bench that after death of the claimant, legal representatives are entitled to maintain a claim for the loss caused to the estate only. While considering the said question the Division Bench has answered the question as to what is an estate and it has been held that estate is that which a person earns for himself and his dependents. Two situations were formulated for consideration by the Division Bench, in Paras 19 and 20, both the situations are examined and answered. The first situation is not relevant for the present case as it pertains to claim arising out of personal injuries, however the second situation is relevant for deciding the present case. In Para 20 the second situation is answered as under:�
The second situation is where the award in favour of the claimant has been passed and it is challenged in the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant dies. The claimant had also filed appeal/cross-objection claiming enhancement. The award of the Claims Tribunal is a decree, whether it allows compensation or does not allow the claim petition. Where it is allowed, the amount of decree is accretion to the estate of the deceased. The legal representatives can seek impleadment and defend the decree. But so far as claim for enhancement pertaining to personal injury is concerned, it may not survive to them after the death of the original claimant. Certainly they can pursue the claim for enhancement of claim for loss to the estate depending whether they have pleaded for it in the claim petition, otherwise lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,500/- can be awarded as per second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Division Bench that an award of the Claims Tribunal is a decree and once the claim is allowed the amount awarded becomes the estate of a deceased and the legal representatives can seek recovery of the same. The judgment in the case of Umedchand Golcha (supra), was again re-examined by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. BhagwatiBai and Anr. (supra), and the principle has been affirmed, while doing so learned Full Bench has taken note of Section 1 of Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855, which confers right on the executor, administrator or legal representatives of a deceased person in the matter of maintenance of action for the wrong committed to a person during his life time, after reproducing Section 1 of the Legal Representatives Act, 1855 in Para 12 the Full Bench in Para 13 has observed as under:
It will be clear from Section 1 of the Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855, quoted above that the legal representatives of any deceased person can maintain an action for any wrong committed in the lifetime of such deceased person, which has occasioned pecuniary loss to his estate, for which wrong an action might have been maintained by such person, so as such wrong shall have been committed within one year before his death and the damages when recovered shall be part of the personal estate of such person. It is by virtue of this provision in Section 1 of the Legal Representatives Suit Act, 1855 that the legal representatives of the deceased person can also maintain or continue to maintain an application for compensation for personal injury suffered in the lifetime of such person in a motor accident which has occasioned pecuniary loss to the estate for which such person might have filed an application for compensation u/s 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Once it is held that for the purpose of loss to the estate even legal heirs can maintain an application for compensation then the right of a legal representatives to maintain an action for recovery of the amount already awarded which is an estate of the claimants is also maintainable in the light of aforesaid settled legal principle, accordingly, I find no error in the order passed by the Court below rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner, learned Executing Court has also decided the objection after taking note of the principles laid down in the case of Umedchand Golcha (supra).
Accordingly finding no error in the order passed and finding no illegality or irregularity in the matter order passed by the Executing Court is upheld as this revision petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed without any order so as to cost.
