The central legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation for 'No Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is considered part of the estate of the deceased and should be inherited by the legal representatives.

This appeal is directed against the award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P. No: 47 of 2002 [M.C.O.P. No: 114 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam] by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The case of the parties before the lower Court are briefly stated as follows:

"(i) On 09.08.1999 at 8.00 a.m. the 1st claimant and his sons father-in-law were travelling in a TVS-50 bearing registration No: TN-36 B-0887. The 1st claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. When the TVS 50 was coming from north to south in the Coimbatore – Mysore Highway, the bus belonging to the 2nd respondent bearing registration No: TN-33 0701 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the TVS 50. The 1st claimant fell down and the right side wheel of the bus ran over the right leg of the 1st claimant. He was hospitalised at Sathyamangalam Government Hospital and Coimbatore Ganga Hospital and various surgeries were performed on him. The 1st claimant suffered a permanent disbaility. Before the accident he was doing agricultural work in about 12 acre land. He spent a huge sum towards his treatment. On 011. 2001, the 1s claimant died leaving behind claimants 2 to 5 as his legal representatives. Hence, the respondents were liable to compensate for the loss caused due to his death and for loss of love and affection at a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest.

(ii) The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the allegations are all false. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TVS 50. It was not caused due to the mistake of the respondents. The genuinity of the age, business, income and the nature of injuries suffered by the 1st claimant are not proved. The compensation claimed is very much on the higher side. Since, the cause of the accident is the person who drove the TVS 50 and in the absence of the claimant not including the owner, driver and insurer of the TVS 50, this claim petition itself is not maintainable and hence, the claim petition may be rejected. "

2. The lower Court, after going through all the materials made available before it, including oral and documentary evidence, had awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for the loss of life of the 1st petitioner, who died during the pendency of the claim petition, because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, against a claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellants are the claimants 2 to 5 before the lower Court and the legal representatives of the deceased 1st claimant.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for either side.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would submit in his argument that the lower Court had, without going through the legal aspects and without calculating actual compensation for the loss of life of the deceased / 1st claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering for the fractures suffered by the 1st claimant and had directed to pay the same to claimants 2 to 5. He would further submit that the lower Court had not considered that the claimants 2 to 5 were the legal representatives of the deceased / 1st claimant who died in consequence of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 09.08.1999. He would further submit that the claimants 2 to 5 who are the legal representatives of the deceased 1st claimant are entitled for the expenses incurred by the 1st claimant for treating his injuries and also the statutory liability for the loss of life of the deceased / 1st claimant. He would cite a judgment of our Apex Court reported in 2007 (10) S.C.C. 643 [Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and antoher]. He would add that as per the judgment of our Apex Court the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under "No Fault Liability" which is a statutory liability of the respondent will become the estate of the deceased and the said sum along with the medical expenses could have been awarded by th