( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. , sangareddy against the order of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Sangareddy ("the Tribunal" for brevity) in O. P. No. 389 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE first claimant by name Kishan rao met with a motor vehicle accident on 6-6-1985 and received multiple injuries and fracture to his right leg. He made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 ("the Act for brevity) claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 for the injuries received by him in the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 83,000. 00 with interest and costs.

( 3 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

( 4 ) ON 6-6-1985 while the first claimant was going on his motorcycle, a jeep came in the opposite direction and dashed against him. He was admitted in the government Civil Hospital, Siddipet and after first aid he was referred to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. He was treated in the hospital for the fracture of the leg and operation was also conducted to insert the steel plate at the fractured portion of the leg. He was in the hospital till 19-10-1985 and re-admitted on 5-11-1985. Another operation was done on 20-11-1985 and he was discharged on 12-12-1985.

( 5 ) THE petition was filed on 14-7-1986, but it was numbered in 1991. During the pendency of the petition the first claimant met with natural death on 1-12-1995 and his legal representatives were brought on record as Claimants 2 to 5.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,000. 00 towards loss of earnings, Rs. 9,000. 00 towards transport charges, Rs. 5,000. 00 towards medical expenses, Rs. 9,000. 00 towards extra- nourishment, Rs. 10,000. 00 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 36,000. 00 for partial permanent disability.

( 7 ) THE appellant-insurance company contends that since the first claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition, the Tribunal ought not have awarded any compensation to the other claimants, particularly the amount awarded towards pain and suffering and partial permanent disability. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of a maxim actio personalis maritor cum persona submitted that the personal action dies with the person, therefore, the legal representatives are not entitled for any compensation.

( 8 ) IF the estate gets benefited the l. Rs. are entitled for compensation, therefore, it has to be tested whether the L. Rs. are entitled for the compensation payable under the head "pain and suffering" and "partial permanent disability". It has to be further tested as to what are the items under the Act which can be treated as income for the benefit of the estate and what are the amounts which go with the person on his death. The learned Counsel for the appellant sri K. L. N. Rao relied on certain judgments in support of his contention, which I wish to refer.

( 9 ) IN Kongara Narayanamma v. Uppala China Simhachalam, 1975 ACJ 448 (AP), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that when the injured died pending disposal of the petition, his LRs. can claim compensation for loss to the estate of the deceased.

( 10 ) UNDER Legal Representatives Suits act (XII of 1855) the cause of action in respect of loss to the estate of a person whose death had been caused by a tortuous act was made to survive and be available to the executors, administrators or representatives of the deceased.

( 11 ) SECTION 1-A of the Indian Fatal accidents Act (XIII of 1855) provides for compulsory damages for wrongful death which must be limited strictly to the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries and under section 2, the measures of damages is the economic loss sustained by the estate.

( 12 ) IF the compensation awardable in respect of some of the items can be said to have resulted in loss to the property of the injured person, there is nothing in law or section 110-A (1) of the Act which prohibits a claim