DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

(1.) This appeal had originally been filed by claimant Karam Chand for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The appellant was injured in the accident. He has died during the pendency of this appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record.

(3.) The main question which arises is whether an appeal which was filed by the injured-claimant for personal injuries suffered by him can be continued by his legal representatives.

(4.) Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants contended that cause of action survives to legal heirs and as such they are entitled to prosecute the claim.

(5.) On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has stated that cases of personal injury not resulting in death of the injured give rise only to personal action in which heirs of such person are not entitled to continue with the case. The right of injured person to claim damages is personal to him under the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona.

(6.) It is well settled law that an action in tort for claim of compensation on account of injuries suffered by an injured is a right personal to the injured. This right cannot be continued by the legal heirs or legal representatives. It is no doubt true that legal heirs or the legal representatives can continue the proceedings insofar as they relate to the loss to the estate such as medical expenses, amount spent on treatment, etc. However, the claim with regard to pain and suffering, future loss of income and such related matters is an action which is personal to the injured alone and cannot be continued after his death unless it is proved that death is the result of injuries suffered in the accident.

(7.) A Division Bench of this court in Narinder Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 ACJ 767 (HP), held as follows:

"(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona relates only to the personal or bodily injuries and not to the loss caused to the estate of the deceased by the tortfeasor. In its applicability, the principle stands considerably modified by the provisions of section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which clearly lays down that all demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceedings existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his death survive except causes of action for defamation, assault and other personal injuries not causing death of the party, etc., which come to an end with the death of injured. The loss to the estate is thus not covered by the exceptions contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. While taking this view, we are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, 1986 ACJ 440 (SC) and M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira, AIR 1988 SC 506 . The claimants are legal representatives of the original claimant were, as such, entitled to be substituted in his place with a view to continue the proceedings in the case and to have a decision on the claim in respect of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased."

(8.) Keeping in view the settled position of law and the fact that in the present case there is no claim for loss to the estate and the entire claim is based on the personal claim of the deceased Karam Chand, the appeal cannot be continued and prosecuted by the legal representatives.

(9.) In view of the above, the appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Cross-objection No. 360 of 1996:

(10.) In view of the law as laid down by a Full Bench of this court in Lata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2005 ACJ 857 (HP), the cross-objections filed by the respondent Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. are not maintainable and the same are rejected. No costs. Appeal dismissed.