Vykuntam, the petitioner in O.P.No.231/89 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, challenged the order dated 28-12-1990 being aggrieved of the granting of compensation of Rs.10,000/- only instead of granting Rs.40,000/- for injuries sustained by him. The said petitioner-the appellant who preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, died pending appeal and appellants 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased - sale appellant in C.M.P.No.20403/ 2003 dt.4-11-2003 and thus the said legal representatives are further prosecuting the litigation at present.

2. Sri Bheemsen, the learned Counsel representing the appellants would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for the purpose of convenience) is on the lower side and the compensation as prayed for could have been awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the legal representatives of an injured can further prosecute this litigation since it is a loss to the estate of the deceased and hence despite the fact that the original injured is no more and died during the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the same may not come in the way of granting enhancement of compensation by this Court. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge and would point out that the approach adopted by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be justifiable. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

3. Per contra, Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing R.3-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited would maintain that in such cases after the death of the injured, the cause of action does not survive and the legal representatives are not entitled to further prosecute the litigation. The learned Counsel also would submit that at any rate such awarding of compensation cannot be beyond the life time of the injured. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the evidence available en record, inasmuch as the injury is only simple injury, the granting of compensation by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.

4. S. Vykuntam, the appellant who initially filed the appeal, the petitioner, filed O.P.No.231/89 on the file of the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him. O.P.No.165/89 also was filed claiming compensation on account of death of Narasimha Chary in the self- same accident and it is stated that a common order was made and as far as the award made in O.P.No.165/89 is concerned, the same had attained finality.

5. The facts in brief are that on 3-3-1989 at about 8.15 p.m., the deceased Narasimha Chary returned to his village from Karimnagar in APSRTC Bus and got down the bus at the bus stage. The appellant herein - the petitioner in O.P.No.231/89 on the file of the Tribunal, Vykuntam, who was travelling in the same bus to Jagtial got down at the aforesaid village from the bus to take tea and the bus was parked on the side of the road at Kurkyal Village stage and at that time two lorries bearing Nos. APR-4383 and AA T - 4415 came from Jagtial side i.e., in the opposite direction of the bus with high speed, trying to overtake each other in rash and negligent manner and unmindful of the standing bus at the village bus stage, the lorry bearing No.APR-4383 sped towards Karimnagar to the right of the bus but the lorry bearing No. AAT -4415 sped at a high speed towards Karimnagar from the left side of