JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 16. 05. 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ton in MAC No. 32/92 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,10,250/- has been awarded under different heads in respect of injuries sustained injured Chhagan Lal husband of the present appellant. Initially the claim application was filed by injured chhagan lal before the Tribunal in respect of injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of motor vehicle took place on 7. 11. 91. However, during the pendency of the claim application, the injured died on 26. 5. 95 i. e. after three and half years from the date of accident and the present appellant being his wife was substituted in his place before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and submissions of both the parties came to the conclusion that appellant is entitled to receive compensation for loss of estate for three and half years i. e. till the date of death of the injured and consequently awarded Rs. 84,000/- for three and half years as loss of estate assessing his income as Rs. 2,000/- per month. Rs. 15,250/- was further awarded for expenses of treatment, Rs. 6000/- for transportation and Rs. 5,000/- for healthy diet etc. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that injured Chhagan lal died on 26. 5. 95 due to injury sustained by him in motor accident took place 7. 11. 1991, therefore, appellant is entitled to receive full compensation under the head of loss of estate. he further submits that even if Chhagan Lal did not die due to this injury, but died during the pendency of this application for compensation before Tribunal, still the appellant is entitled to receive full compensation for los of income for remaining part of life and not for the period upto the date of death of injured as done by Tribunal in the present case. He submits that ?tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding compensation for loss of estate only for the period upto the date of death of injured Chhagan Lal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that injured did not die due to this injury. His death took place after three and half years from the date of accident. He further submits that it is a case of injury and in such matters claim is awarded only for a period upto the date of death of the injured if he dies during the pendency of the application and not for subsequent period, therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding the compensation in the present matter for the period upto death of injured. He has also referred to the judgment of Naseeban & Anr. vs. Surendra Pal & Ors. (1995 DNJ (Raj.) 241), wherein this court awarded compensation for personal los only upto the date of death of the injured claimant and not for subsequent period. he has also referred to the decision of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. G. Kishen Rao & Ors. (II (2004) ACC 249), wherein Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the legal representatives of the injured are not entitled for amount of compensation towards future loss of earning. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the finding of the learned Tribunal in the light of record of the Tribunal.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal while discussing issue No. 2 has considered that in the present case the accident took place on 17. 11. 91 and injured died on 26. 05. 1995 during the pendency of the claim application. THE Tribunal also considered that injured had sustained 14. 06% permanent disability. THE learned Tribunal also considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that in the case of injury, the claim application abates on the date of death of the injured. THE Tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation treating the income of the appellant as Rs. 2000/- per month for a period of three and half years and awarded Rs. 84,000/- in this regard. It is relevant to mention that so far as monthly income of the injured determined by the Tribunal is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. THE Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 15,250/- towards treatment and further Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively for transportation as well as healthy diet etc. So far as first contention of learned counsel for the appellant that injured Chhagan lal died on 26. 5. 95 due to injury sustained in motor accident dated 7. 11. 91 is concerned the same cannot be accepted. The application was filed for compensation for injury only. The death took place after three and half years. Although the name of present appellant was allowed to be substituted in place of injured Chhagan Lal but the application for compensation was not amended by the appellant after substitution of her name so as to make it as an application for compensation for death of Chhagan Lal in motor accident. There is no medical or other evidence to prove that Chhagan Lal died due to above injury. Therefore, first contention of the counsel for appellant is negatived. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant that even if injured claimant died during the pendency of the application for compensation then also his legal representatives are entitled to receive full compensation for loss of estate for so called remaining part of his life and not for the period upto date of death, is also not acceptable. This court while considering first submission of the appellant has already held that chhagan Lal did not die due to above injury, hence his death, during the pendency of the application, will be treated as his natural death and in such circumstances where fact of death of claimant is in knowledge of the Tribunal, then no compensation can be awarded for the period subsequent to the death of the injured-claimant. ;