The document discusses the effect of death of parties in tort cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. It begins by outlining the common law rule of "actio personalis moritur cum persona" where a cause of action dies with the person and their death ends the case. It then provides exceptions to this rule for cases involving contracts, unjust enrichment, or shortening of life expectancy. The document also discusses exceptions to the rule in Baker v. Bolton, which established that causing death was not a tort. It concludes by discussing compensation processes under the Motor Vehicles Act Tribunals.

1. EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTIES IN
TORT UNDER MV ACT
Swathy P.S
Batch – 1
Roll number - 61

2. INTRODUCTION
The event of death of a party raises two kinds of question in the law of
torts,
(a) If the wrongdoer, does a cause of action which had already accrued
before death survive?
(b) Does the act causing death give rise to a cause of action?

3. Effect of Death on the Subsisting Cause of Action
According to English common law, no cause of action
arises against the person who is dead. This rule was contained in the
maxim “Actio personalis moritur cum persona”, the cause of action dies
with the person, and thus, if any of the parties die, cause of action
comes to an end.
The application of the maxim in India can be seen in the case of:

4. Balbir Singh Makol v. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital:
A complaint was filed by Balbir Singh Makol against
the surgeon alleging that his son died because of the blunder
committed by the surgeon. While the proceedings were going on, the
Surgeon died. The National Commission of India applied the maxim
“Actio personalis moritur cum persona” and held that with the death of
the surgeon the cause of action has also come to an end and therefore,
the legal heirs of the surgeon cannot be made liable for the same.

5. Exception of the maxim “Actio personalis moritur cum persona”
• Action under Contract: The maxim does not apply to the cases where an
action is brought under the law of contract, therefore the legal representatives
of the person can be made liable for the performance. However, if the contract
entered into is a contract of personal service, then the legal representatives
would not be liable for the performance. Thus, for example, there is a contract
with A for singing on a particular event and meanwhile, A dies, then the
representatives of A cannot be made liable for the performance
• Unjust enrichment of tortfeasor’s estate: If someone, before his death has
wrongfully appropriated the property of another person then the person whose
property has been appropriated does not lose his right to bring an action
against the representatives of the deceased and recover the property. The
rationale behind it is that, only the thing actually belonged to the deceased can
be passed to his representatives.

6. Shortening of the expectation of life
One of the consequences which may attend physical injury is a
shortening of expectation of life, so that the injured person can not in
any possibility survive as long as he would otherwise have done.
If the expectation of life has been reduced because of the injuries
caused by the defendant then the person is entitled for the
compensation.
The compensation under this head for the first time was given in the
case:

7. Flint v. Lovell
Facts: the Plaintiff aged 69 years who was otherwise very active was
injured in an accident caused because of the negligence of the
defendant.
Held: The appellant court granted compensation to the plaintiff.

8. Rule in Baker v. Bolton
The rule causing the death of a person is not a tort was lay down in the
case of Baker v. Bolton, and therefore known as the rule in Baker v.
Boulton. In Baker v. Bolton the plaintiff was held entitled for injury to
himself and also the loss of wife’s society and distress, from the date of
the accident till her death but not for any loss caused after death.

9. Exception to the rule in Baker v. Bolton
However, there are certain exceptions available to the rule in Baker v.
Bolton which are discussed below:
Death due to breach of contract: Although, causing the death of the
person is not actionable under the law of tort but if the death is the
result of the breach of contract then the fact of death can be taken into
account to determine the damages payable on the breach of Contract.

10. • Jackson v. Watson
• In this case the Plaintiff purchased a tin of Salmon from the defendants. Wife
of the plaintiff died because of the consumption of salmon supplied by the
defendants. It was found that the contents of the Salmon were injurious to
health. It was held by the court that there was a breach of contract as the
defendant has failed to supply the goods safe for consumption and hence, the
plaintiff was held entitled to claim compensation for the loss of service of the
wife due to her death.

11. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [MACT]
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been created by the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. It has been constituted to provide speedier remedy
to the victims of accident by motor vehicles. The Tribunals takes away
jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matters which concerns the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal. Appeals from Claims Tribunal lies with High
Courts. The appeal is limited by time and has to be filed in the High
Court within 90 days from the date of award of Claims Tribunal. ‘The
High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period
of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.’ (Section-173).
However, there is no time limit for filing motor vehicle accidents claim.
But an unusual delay will demand an explanation by the Tribunal.

12. According to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988
compensation can be claimed –By the person who has sustained
injury; By the owner of the damaged property; By all or any legal
representative of the deceased who died in the accident; By duly
authorised agent of the injured person or all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased who died in the accident.
The claim Petition can be filed by the following– To the
Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident
occurred or, to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides, or carries on business or, within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.

13. The Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is a comprehensive legislation with the
purpose of enhancing road safety. It also serves the purpose of welfare
legislation by providing for compensation in case of loss of life or limb
because of accidents by motor vehicles. Section-2(30) of the Act
defines who is the ‘owner’. “Owner” is; a person in whose name a
motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the
guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the
subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an
agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
under that agreement.

14. Following documents should accompany the Claim petition:-
1. Copy of the FIR registered in connection with said accident, if any.
2. Copy of the MLC/Post Mortem Report/Death Report as the case may be.
3. The documents of the identity of the claimants and of the deceased in a
death case.
4. Original bills of expenses incurred on the treatment alongwith treatment
record.
5. Documents of the educational qualifications of the deceased, if any.
6. Disability Certificate, if already obtained, in an injury case.
7. The proof of income of the deceased/injured.
8. Documents about the age of the victim.
9. The cover note of the third party insurance policy, if any.
10.An affidavit detailing the relationship of the claimants with the deceased.

15. The inquiry contemplated under Section 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is different from a trial. The inquiry contemplated under Section
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out of a complaint filed by a victim of
the road accident or an AIR filed by the police under Section 158(6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act which is treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4)
of the Motor Vehicles Act. These provisions are in the nature of social
welfare legislation. Upon receipt of report from the police or a claim petition
from the victim, the Claims Tribunal has to ascertain the facts which are
necessary for passing the award. To illustrate, in the case of death of a victim
in a road accident, the Tribunal has to ascertain the factum of the accident;
accident having being caused due to rash and negligent driving; age,
occupation and income of the deceased; number of legal representatives
and their age. If the claimants have not produced copies of the record of the
criminal case before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal is not absolved
from the duty to ascertain the truth to do justice and the Claims Tribunal can
summon the investigating officer along with the police record. The Delhi
High Court has passed sedirections in this regard. The Delhi High Court has
summarized the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal in motor
accidents cases in Mayur Arora v. Amit.

16. CONCLUSION
Earlier, the common rule was, smaller injuries fall within the
purview of civil law and not the death of a person. But now, if the legal
representatives of the deceased prove that the death was the direct cause of
defendant’s tort, they would be entitled to special damages along with
general damages.
Under English common rule, no cause of action arises against the
person who is dead. However, the situation is quite different today, and the
legal representatives are entitled to bring a legal action in a court of law.
Similarly, the legal representatives of the deceased can be made liable in
certain cases.
The rule in Baker v. Bolton has become outmoded and it is
hoped that this outmoded rule will be discarded and the liability for the
consequences of the death will be recognized either by some legislative
actions or judicial pronouncements.