Legal Representatives Can Pursue Claims for Loss to Estate Despite Death of Deceased Pendente Lite

On June 4, 2015, the claimant, Paramjit Singh (aged 53), sustained severe head injuries when his scooty was hit by a rashly driven car.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation but limited loss of future income to two years because the 90% intellectual disability was then classified as "temporary".

During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant's condition was re-assessed by AIIMS, confirming 100% permanent intellectual and locomotor disability.

The claimant passed away on June 14, 2019.

The Insurance Company sought reduction of the award, arguing the case should be treated as a "death case" rather than an "injury case," and contended that the claim for personal injury abated upon death.

1. Whether the claim for compensation on account of personal injuries survives to the Legal Representatives (LRs) upon the death of the injured claimant during the pendency of an appeal.

2. Whether the case should be treated as a "death case" or an "injury case" for the purpose of computing compensation when death occurs years after the accident.

The Court primarily applied the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona as interpreted in the context of beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon (2022), which established that while claims for purely personal damage like "pain and suffering" may abate, claims affecting the "loss of estate"—including medical expenses, future prospects, and attendant charges—survive to the LRs.

It further applied Meena v. State of U.P. (2025), holding that non-pecuniary damages already awarded by a Tribunal during the claimant's lifetime should not be disturbed even if they cannot be further enhanced post-mortem.

The court also utilized the multiplier method and future prospects standards from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s argument that the claim abated or should be converted to a death claim, reasoning that since the accident occurred in 2015 and death in 2019, the 2019 Amendment Act (Section 166(5)) did not apply retrospectively.

Applying the Kahlon precedent, the Court distinguished between personal attributes of a claim and those impacting the "estate"; it found that 100% permanent disability directly depleted the estate through loss of earnings and medical costs, which must be compensated to the LRs.

The Court noted that the insurer failed to prove a direct nexus between the 2015 injuries and the 2019 death during cross-examination, thus the claim remained valid as an "injury case" where rights crystallized at the time of the accident.

Regarding non-pecuniary heads, the Court followed Meena, maintaining the original awards for pain and loss of amenities (as they were granted during the claimant's life) but refusing to enhance them.

It enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 7,48,000 to Rs. 32,82,000, applying a multiplier of 11 and 10% future prospects for a 100% disability assessment.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 25,34,000 with 9% interest, with the award apportioned 70% to the widow and 30% to the daughter of the deceased.