1. The appellant is the Insurance Company, which is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Salem in M.C.O.P.No.2456 of 2002. (For brevity hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal and the impugned order respectively).

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-as compensation to the legal heirs viz., respondents 2 to 4 of the deceased Sivabackiyam.

3. It was the case of the deceased / claimant that on 01.07.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. aged about 56 years, while walking on the road, a rider of a TVS Super XL belonging to the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant knocked her down from behind and injured her resulting in a fracture to her left tibia with laceration and protruding bone as per Ex.A.4 doctor certificate dated 01.07.2002.

4. It is seen from Ex.P.1-FIR and Ex.P.4-wound certificate filed by Perumal son of the deceased Sowabackayam stated that while the deceased was proceeding on the road side to dump garbage she was hit by a TVS XL-50 bearing No.TN.31-M.0355 driven by its, who was riding it in a rash and negligent manner and knocked her down resulting in fracture to bones.

5. Pursuant to the fall, the deceased was admitted in Cuddalore Government Hospital. The deceased had suffered grievous injury. There is no record of permanent disability or partial permanent disablement.

6. The deceased Sivabackiyam thereafter filed a claim petition on 10.03.2003 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards external injuries suffered by her. The deceased thereafter passed away after 17.07.2003.

7. Since the accident victim later passed away on 17.07.2003, the Tribunal brought the respondent nos.2 to 4 to be impleaded as the legal of the deceased-claimant.

8. The Tribunal concluded that the death was on account of the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and that the deceased-claimant suffered grievous injuries and was entitled for compensation. Thus, the legal heirs, namely, respondent nos.2 to 4 were entitled for compensation on the following heads:

9. This case was referred to the Lok Adalat in 2010. However, it appears the case could not be settled on the ground that the appellant was not willing to settle case. Therefore, this case was taken up for hearing on 04.07.2018 finally.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents and evidence available on records.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards alleged grievous injury and towards pain and sufferings cannot succeed to the legal heirs of the deceased as they die with the deceased. He invoked the latin maxim "Actio personalis moritur-cum-personna".

12. It was submitted that pursuant to the death of the claimant, the legal heirs cannot claim the compensation in respect of the “personal injuries” and “pain and suffering” in terms of the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in:

(i) The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Manohar(deceased) and 3 Others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 81 (DB)

(ii) Managing Director, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai vs. S.Rajalakshmi and four others, 2000 (IV) CTC 528

13. In Girija Nandini Devi vs. Bijendra narain, AIR 1967 SC 1124, which was followed in The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Manohar(deceased) and 3 Others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 81 (DB) cited supra, it was held that “The maxim "Actio personalis moritur-cum-personna" means a personal action dies with the person has a limited application. It operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto s