The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between compensation awarded to legal representatives as a personal claim and compensation for the benefit of the estate under the Fatal Accidents Act, emphasizing that the former is not liable to be attached in execution of a decree obtained against the legal representatives in their capacity as representatives of the deceased.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

The question that arises in this revision is whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the legal representatives of a deceased is liable to be attached in a claim against the deceased person.

2. The revision arises from an order in execution. Decree holder is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed by him against one Mohammed Ismail Kasim. Pending suit he died in a motor accident and his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 2 to 7. A decree was granted against the defendants on 17-12-1986 directing the amount to be realised from the assets of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives. The heirs of the deceased obtained an award from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon. The award was passed for an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in their favour. That amount was sought to be attached by the decree holder. An order of attachment was granted and the amount was attached. On the motion of the judgment debtors the executing court vacated that order finding that the amount is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree. That order is under challenge in this revision.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, before whom the revision came up for hearing felt that the question involved in the revision is an important one and it was adjourned for being heard by a Division Bench. That is how the matter is now before us.

4. Heard counsel on both sides.

5. The main question to be considered in this revision is whether the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal represents an amount due to the estate of the deceased or whether it is a personal claim of the legal representatives of the deceased. The claim for compensation is one made under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which enables the legal representatives of a person who died in a Motor Accident to file an application for compensation. After holding an enquiry into the claim the Tribunal" has to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and pass an award specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act only prescribes the procedure for determination of compensation. The substantive law for determination of compensation is found in Ss.1A and 2 of the Fatas Accidents Act, 1855. S.1A enables the legal representatives of a person whose death was caused by wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of another to maintain an action and recover damages. In every such action the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties. After deducting all costs and expenses such amount has to be divided among the persons for whose benefit such action was brought in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree directs. S.2 of the Act enables the representative of the deceased to insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by such wrongful act, neglect or default over and above the claim made under S.1A of the Act. When recovered such claim shall be deemed to be part of the assets of the estate of the deceased.

6. The scope and the rights of action under these two sections were considered by the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service v. Veinswami ( A.I.R 1962 SC 1). The Supreme Court held that the cause of action under S.1 and that under S.2 are different. While under S.1 damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein under S.2 compensation goes to the benefit of the estate. It is observed that whereas under S.1 damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under S.2 damages can be claimed inlerlia for loss of expectation of life. It is also observed that persons entitled to benefits under S.1 may be different from those claiming under S.2. The Supreme Court further observed that in awarding damages under both the heads there shall not be duplication of the