Right to Sue in Motor Accident Claims Does Not Fully Abate on Death of Claimant: Punjab & Haryana HC Restores Claim Petition

Case Name: Krishan Bhatia and Others v. Virender Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 07.03.2026

Citation: FAO-1774-2000

Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not entirely abate upon the death of the injured claimant. While claims relating purely to personal pain and suffering may not survive, the claim to the extent of loss to the estate survives and can be pursued by the legal representatives.

Summary: The present appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the original claimant, Smt. Shashi Bala, challenging the dismissal of her claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the ground that the right to sue did not survive after the death of the claimant.

The facts reveal that the claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 21.01.1997 while travelling as a pillion rider. She was hospitalized and continued treatment thereafter. During the pendency of her claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, she passed away on 10.09.1998, and her legal representatives were brought on record.

The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that since the claim was for personal injuries, the right to sue did not survive and the petition abated. Aggrieved, the legal representatives approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, it was argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim without allowing the legal representatives an opportunity to establish that the death of the claimant was caused due to injuries sustained in the accident. It was further contended that even if such nexus could not be established, the claim would still survive to the extent of loss to the estate, including medical expenses and other pecuniary losses.

The Court examined the settled legal position and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon, wherein it was held that compensation claims relating to loss to the estate survive even if the death is not directly linked to the accident. The Court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted in a manner that advances its object.

It was observed that two situations may arise where an injured claimant dies during proceedings: first, where death is attributable to the accident, in which case the claim can be pursued as one for fatal compensation; and second, where death is unrelated, in which case the claim still survives to the extent of pecuniary loss suffered by the estate.

The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to consider these principles and had erroneously dismissed the claim solely on the ground of death of the claimant. It also noted that the legal representatives were not given adequate opportunity to lead evidence regarding the cause of death.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. It remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with directions to restore the claim petition and grant an opportunity to the legal representatives to lead evidence.

The Tribunal was directed to determine whether the death of the claimant was attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident and, accordingly, assess compensation. Alternatively, it was directed to award compensation under the head of loss to the estate in accordance with law. The Court also directed expeditious disposal of the matter, preferably within six months.