Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy

“Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. — All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.”

Relevance: The central substantive provision. The Court held that this section statutorily modifies the maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona": liabilities generally survive to the legal representative, with personal-injury claims being a strictly-construed exception that abates while estate claims survive.

“In the event of death of a complainant who is a consumer or of the opposite party against whom the complaint has been filed, the provisions of Order XXII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to the plaintiff and the defendant shall be construed as reference to a complainant or the opposite party, as the case may be.”

Relevance: Makes Order XXII of the CPC applicable on the death of a complainant or opposite party. The Court read this as a procedural prescription that does not itself create a right to continue personal claims; survival is governed by substantive law under Section 306.

“Rule 2 provides that where one of several defendants dies and the right to sue survives against the surviving defendants alone, the suit proceeds without substitution. Rule 4 provides that where a sole defendant (or sole surviving defendant) dies and the right to sue survives, the Court shall, on application, cause the legal representative to be made a party and proceed with the suit; failing timely application, the suit abates as against the deceased defendant.”

Relevance: The procedural machinery for continuation on death. The Court held that the "right to sue" referred to in these rules is a matter of substantive law under Section 306 and that Order XXII must be harmoniously construed with the Succession Act.

“Enables executors, administrators or representatives of a deceased to sue, and to be sued, for wrongs committed in the lifetime of the deceased that occasioned pecuniary loss to the estate, where the wrong was committed within one year before death; and provides that no action commenced under the Act shall abate by reason of the death of either party.”

Relevance: One of the statutory instruments the Court relied on to show that the maxim has been modified in India, confining surviving suits to those concerning pecuniary loss of the estate and confirming that estate claims pass to the legal representative.

“Continues the position under Section 13(7) of the 1986 Act, providing that in the event of death of a complainant who is a consumer or of the opposite party, the provisions of Order XXII of the CPC shall apply.”

Relevance: The Court noted that the 2019 Act carries forward the same procedural scheme and the inclusive definition of "complainant," reinforcing that consumer claims do not automatically perish on death and survive through legal representatives subject to substantive law.