1. 1st respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money against the deceased 1st judgment debtor in the year 2002. 1st judgment debtor met with a motor accident and succumbed to the injuries on 4.5.2004. Petitioners who are his legal heirs filed O.P. (M.V.) No. 1736 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short, "the Tribunal") and obtained Ext.P10, award for recovery of `13,60,000/- by way of compensation. After the death of the 1st judgment debtor, petitioners were impleaded in E.P. No. 235 of 2010 (in OS No. 293 of 2000) as additional judgment debtors. 1st respondent filed E.A. No. 959 of 2010 to attach `2,10,000/- from the amount awarded by the Tribunal and payable to the petitioners. After hearing both sides, learned Sub Judge dismissed E.A. No. 959 of 2010 holding that no amount payable to the petitioners as per Ext.P10, award could be attached as it is not the property of the deceased 1st judgment debtor. Thereafter placing reliance on the observations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the decision in E.S.I. Corporation v. Rajagopal Textile Mills (P) Ltd., (2006 (4) KLT 730), 1st respondent sought review of the order on E.A. No. 959 of 2010 vide E.A. No. 1214 of 2010. Learned Sub Judge allowed that application, reviewed the order on E.A. No. 959 of 2010 and attached `2,10,000/-payable to the petitioners from the amount awarded by, Ext.P10, award. The order on E.A. No. 1214 of 2010 is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, after hearing both sides this Court passed an interim order on 6.9.2011 granting stay except to the extent of `15,000/- from the amount in deposit which the 1st respondent was allowed to withdraw.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the amount attached represents pecuniary loss suffered by petitioners as dependents and legal heirs of the deceased 1st judgment debtor consequent to his death in the motor accident, it is not the property of the deceased 1st judgment debtor, it is the property of petitioners who have no personal liability to the 1st respondent and hence the said amount is not attachable. According to the learned counsel, only compensation awarded by way of loss of estate of the deceased 1st judgment debtor could be attached. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Smt. Lakshmisagar Reddy v. Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderabad, (1980 (123) ITR 601), The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad v. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Ors. (AIR 1985 A.P. 83) and Janaki and Others v. Prabath Finance, (AIR 1986 Mad. 273). Learned counsel also invited my attention to the meaning of the expression 'decedent's estate' from Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.

4. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would rely on the observations in para.11 of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and Ors. (AIR 1962 SC 1), Lakshmi v. Chairman, K.S.R.T.C. (1983 KLT 842) (para.5) and Kumaran v. Mohammed Khader (1994 (2) KLT 409) (para.8). My attention is also drawn to S.1A of the Fatal Accidents Act to contend that learned Sub Judge is justified in attaching `2,10,000/-which forms part of loss of estate of the deceased. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the said amount is payable to the legal heirs by virtue of S.1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.

5. To resolve the issue it is necessary to refer to Ext.P10, award passed by the Tribunal in OP (MV) No. 1736 of 2004 in favour of the petitioners. In paragraph 11, the Tribunal has given the headwise account under which compensation was awarded to the petitioners. The first head is "compensation for loss of dependency and estate", the amount awarded being `13,20,000/- for loss of estate, another sum of `5,000/-is awarded and for pain and suffering of the deceased, `5,000/-is awarded. The other amounts awarded include transportation expenses, funeral expenses, compensation for loss of love and affection (of the children) and loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased