Judgment :- (PRAYER: Appeal against the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, dated 11.12.2002 in M.C.O.P. No.222 of 2000. R. Balasubramanian, J. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the civil miscellaneous appeal is itself taken up for final disposal. 2. Notice to Respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with, since they are the owner and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. 3. Yuvraj met with a motor vehicle accident on 23.2.1999 and sustained injuries. Claiming a compensation quantified at Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries sustained, he went before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute that Yuvaraj died on 9.7.2000. On his death, his legal representatives, viz. respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, had come on record. They are the parents of the claimant, who was originally before the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the claimants have not let in any evidence, viz medical evidence to establish that the death of Yuvaraj on 9.7.2000 was due to the or the direct result of the injuries stated to have been sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 23.2.1999. 4. Having regard to the above fact, the question is whether the award passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- in favour of he claimants on the ground that on account of the death of their son as referred to above, they have lost in terms of dependency from their son is sustainable? 5. As early as in the year 1974, A Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported in 1974 A.C.J. 362 [Kandaswamy vs. Mariappa Stores], has held as hereunder: “In the case of an injured claimant, the cause of action will not survive in respect of the legal representatives of the claimant. The division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court had taken note of section 306 of the Indian succession Act and have held that claim for compensation in respect of personal injuries will not be available for the legal representatives provided the death was not cause as a result of the accident. The division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court had taken note of section 306 of the Indian succession Act and have held that claim for compensation in respect of personal injuries will not be available for the legal representatives provided the death was not cause as a result of the accident. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the position would be different if the suit for damages had resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff in which case the decree amount would form part of the estate of the deceased to which the legal representatives would be entitled to. But where no such decree has been passed, the legal representatives of the claimant will not be entitled to compensation due towards personal injuries are concerned.” The above judgment had been consistently followed by this Court, viz. either by learned single judge or by a Division Bench. 6. In the light of the facts stated above, we have no doubt at all the all that the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal had definitely committed an error of law in quantifying the loss to the estate of the claimants in terms of the monetary support, which the deceased could have given to them had he been alive. Under these circumstances, the compensation fixed at Rs.1,75,000/- is liable to be set aside. 7. But at the same time, we cannot say that there is no loss to the estate at all. The loss to the estate is the expenses incurred by the parents in giving treatment to their son. Exhibit A.9 series are the medical bills for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Exhibit A.11 series are the bills for a sum of Rs.27,042/-, being the expenses incurred by the claimants to meet the medical treatment given to their son. The total of these two bills comes to Rs.42,042/-. The Tribunal quantified the expenses incurred in giving the treatment to the injured at Rs.41,995/-. Having regard to the entirety of the facts available on record, we are of the opinion that the claimants are definitely entitled to be compensated to the extent of Rs.42,042/-, being the loss to the estate. Taking a sympathetic view in this case, we are inclined to round off this sum to Rs.50,000/-so that the family would get some relief. 8. Taking a sympathetic view in this case, we are inclined to round off this sum to Rs.50,000/-so that the family would get some relief. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of by modifying the award in challenge as hereunder:- The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as decreed by the Tribunal. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the said sum of Rs.50,000/- together with the interest accrued thereon, upto the date of withdrawal. The insurance company will be entitled to refund of the remaining sum. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.18507 of 2004 is closed.