Personal Injury Claims Such As Mental Agony Abate Upon Death Of Person: Delhi High Court
The Court held that damages for mental agony and loss of prestige do not form part of a deceased plaintiff's estate.
The Delhi High Court partially allowed an appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), holding that claims for personal injuries such as mental agony, harassment, and loss of prestige abate upon the death of the plaintiff under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and do not survive to the legal representatives.
The Court held that the compensation awarded to the Respondent/Defendant by the Trial Court towards mental agony, loss of prestige and inconvenience caused was not tangible enough to form a part of his estate.
Therefore, the same could not have been granted in favour of the LRs of the deceased respondent/plaintiff, on account of the right to sue for such claim having abated on the death of the respondent/plaintiff.
The Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held, "The words ‘other personal injuries not causing the death of the party’ have been read ejusdem generis with ‘defamation’ and ‘assault’, to cover any injury to a person’s dignity, reputation, mental agony and the like. Accordingly, in terms of Section 306 of the Succession Act, relief for personal injuries such as mental agony, etc. do not survive upon the death of the person concerned."
Advocate Anil Kumar Batra appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared for the Respondent
Brief Facts of the Case
The Appellant/Defendant, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL") filed an appeal assailing the judgment passed by the District Court in a suit whereby the District Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and held that he was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 15,30,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- was awarded under the heads of mental agony, loss of prestige and inconvenience caused to the respondent/plaintiff; Rs. 4,80,000/- was awarded on account of loss of cash, jewellery and other valuables and household goods; and Rs. 50,000/- was awarded for the balance repair of damaged household goods.
The Respondent/Plaintiff was employed by the appellant/defendant as the General Manager, and retired from service in 2005. At the time of retirement, he was placed on deputation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The respondent/plaintiff was allotted a residential accommodation (“subject premises”), which was taken on lease from its owner/lessor. Thereafter, the owner/lessor of the subject premises filed a suit against the appellant/defendant for possession of the subject premises, which was decreed in her favour.
The owner/lessor took possession of the subject premises through her power of attorney and bailiff, by breaking open the lock of the subject premises and removing the belongings of the respondent/plaintiff in his absence. The respondent/plaintiff, vide E-mail to the appellant/defendant, made a claim towards losses suffered by him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid response, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit.
Contentions of the Parties
The Appellant/Defendant submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit for recovery of damages instituted against the appellant/defendant abated on the death of the respondent/plaintiff in light of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was contended that, in the event of the death of the respondent/plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, the suit would abate, and his LRs should not have been brought on record in view of the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona embodied under Section 306 of the Succession Act.
Further, the Trial Court erred in deciding the quantum of compensation without considering the fact that no evidence had been placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, and assess the actual loss suffered by him.
The Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that they were never informed of any pending litigation between the owner/lessor and the appellant/defendant, nor were they ever impleaded in any of these proceedings. During the absence of the respondent/plaintiff and his family members, the bailiff forcibly executed the eviction by breaking open the locks of the subject premises, following which their personal belongings were removed from the subject premises and left on the road.
It was contended that the appellant/defendant was negligent and failed to discharge its duty and responsibility to ensure proper accommodation for the family of its employee, thereby exposing an unprofessional attitude towards its duties. It was further submitted that the existence of liability for negligence depends on whether a duty of care was owed by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.
Such a duty of care exists in the present case, as it was reasonably foreseeable to the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff would suffer injury or damage by an act or omission of the appellant/defendant.
Observations/Findings of the Court
Regarding the first issue, i.e. whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, the Court observed that the Objection Petition was not decided on merits and was rather dismissed on the ground that the respondent’s/plaintiff’s wife could sue the appellant/defendant-BPCL for neglecting its duty to inform her regarding the proceedings of the Court. Thus, it was apparent that such dismissal of the Objection Petition did not operate as res judicata in filing a suit against the appellant/defendant, nor was there any legal bar for filing a suit for damages by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant.
Regarding the second issue of non-joinder of the necessary parties, the Court said that the suit did not seek any relief against the owner/lessor or adjudication of any right, title or interest qua the owner/lessor; hence, their presence was not necessary.
For the third issue, i.e. whether the appellant/defendant can be held liable for negligence on account of tortious liability, the Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was the duty of the appellant/defendant to inform the respondent/plaintiff, in writing, that it had suffered an eviction decree from the Court in a suit filed by the owner/lessor of the subject premises.
"Merely because the respondent/plaintiff was a General Manager, would not mean that he would be aware of the eviction proceedings, especially, when it has come on record that he was on deputation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, at the time of his retirement", the Court noted.
It was held that the Appellant/Defendant ought to have communicated to the respondent/plaintiff, in clear terms, with regard to the eviction decree and the impending execution proceedings.
The Court found no error in the award of Rs. 50,000/- towards repair of damaged household goods to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
On the contrary, the Court ruled that the Trial Court had erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 4,48,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff towards loss of cash and jewellery, in the absence of any evidence on record.
The Court also set aside the award of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony, loss of prestige and inconvenience.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was modified. The Court set aside the award of compensation for loss of cash, jewellery and valuable goods and towards mental agony, loss of prestige and inconvenience.
The Court upheld the award towards balance repair of damaged goods and cost of the suit.
Cause Title: BPCL v. DP Dhall (Through LRs) [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7775]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Anil Kumar Batra, Shashi Bala and Dhruv Kumar
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, Advocate Aditi Gupta, Advocate Shubhi Bhardwaj, Advocate Safeena Khan, Advocate Manasi Sridhar, Advocate Nikita Gill, Advocate Akashdeep, Advocate Lavanya Bhardwaj, Advocate Amandeep Joshi