In a recent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insrance Company limited v. Kahlon (D) Through LR and Another decided on 16.08.2021, a very important question has been answered which was ‘Whether cause of action survives on death of the injured person where the death was not caused due to the accident? and also as to ‘ What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it?’

The facts are important to understand as to under what circumstances this issue has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Original Claimant who was declared 100% disable filed the Claim for compensation. The Ld. Tribunal granted only Rs. 1,00,000/- with 9% interest ignoring that the disability is 100%. The appeal was thus preferred against the Order by the Original Claimant who unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the appeal. On the demise of the Original Claimant, survived legal heir being Unmarried Daughter aged 21 years was substituted in appeal before the High Court. The Hon’ble Court in this appeal subsequently enhanced the compensation to Rs. 37,81,324/- taking into account his annual salary with future prospect applying the multiplier of 11 including pain and suffering, attendant’s charges etc.

Against the enhancement by the Hon’ble High Court, the Insurance Company went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the 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 and suffering along with attendant charges do not form part of the estate of the deceased.

The Apex Court after carefully analysing the entire facts and the evidence put before it, observed and held that “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.”

The Apex Court observed that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal. It was further held that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.

#Motorvehcileaccident#accidentclaimbylegalheir#deathofclaimantduringproceeding#Orientalinsurancecompany#supremecourtofindia#instantlegaladvice#onlinelegaladvice#instalegal#accidentclaimandmultiplier#painandsufferingabates#lossofestatedefined#medicalexpenditureinaccident#futureprospects#motorvehicleact#section163mvact#section166mvact#compensationfordisability#fulldisabilitycompensation#personalinjuryabates#legaladvice#onlinelawyer#bestadvice#expertlawyer