( 1 ) HEARD on IA No. 9963/2005 which is an application for dispensing with service of notice on respondent No. 1. Application is allowed at the risk of appellant. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of parties matter is heard finally. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 7-5-2004 passed by XVI MACT, District-Indore in claim case No. 210/2003 whereby a sum of Rs. 3,050. 00 has been awarded as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum the present appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that the break-up of amount awarded is as under :-Rs. 500. 00 towards medical expenses rs. 1,000. 00 towards pains and sufferings rs. 1,550. 00 towards doctor's fee ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that from discharge certificate it is evident that appellant sustained fracture of l-1 and L-5 bone, it is submitted that medical evidence was adduced by the deceased-claimant to prove that the deceased-claimant sustained fracture. It is submitted that deceased was admitted to Cure-well Hospital where he remained as indore patient from 30/11/1993 to 5/12/1993. It is further submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that no amount has been awarded towards loss of wages for the period when the deceased was on bed rest and loss of travelling expenses. ( 6 ) SHRI HC Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that since the deceased passed away, therefore, no appeal is maintainable for enhancement of the award. It is submitted that appellants who are the parents are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) SHRI HC Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that since the deceased passed away, therefore, no appeal is maintainable for enhancement of the award. It is submitted that appellants who are the parents are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. For this contention learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 placed reliance on a decision in the matter of melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair, reported in 1986 ACJ 440 : ( ( AIR 1986 SC 411 ) wherein hon'ble Apex Court in a suit filed for damages for deformation, which was dismissed by the Trial Court partly decreed by the appellate Court and again dismissed by the high Court in appeal pending before the apex Court, appellant died, his legal representatives filed application for their substitution, in that case the Apex Court held as under (para 9) :-"the position, therefore, is that had the appellant died during the pendency of his suit, the suit would have abated. Had he died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him in the District Court, the appeal would have equally abated because his suit had been dismissed by the trial Court. Had he, however, died during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the respondent in the High Court, the appeal would not have abated because he had succeed in the first appeal and his suit had been decreed. As, however, the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit, the present appeal by special leave must abate because what the appellant was seeking in this appeal was to enforce his right to sue for damages for defamation. This right did not survive his death and accordingly the appeal abated automatically on his death and his legal representatives acquired no right in law to be brought on the record in his place and stead. " ( 7 ) FURTHER reliance was placed by Shri jindal, on a decision in the matter of virendra Singh v. Ashok Kumar and others, reported in 2004 (3) ACJ 1638, wherein after placing reliance on a decision of the Apex court (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that"legal Representatives of the deceased appellant are entitled to the amount of compensation already awarded by the tribunal, are however not entitled to prosecute an appeal filed by the deceased injured for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is held that the amount already awarded formed part of the estate of the deceased and as such, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to receive the same. But they are certainly not entitled to seek any enhancement of the amount of the award. "( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for appellants placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kartar Kaur v. Dayal Singh reported in (1999) 11 ACC 372 : (1999 AIHC 3314) wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under :-"where the injured claimant dies as a result of the injuries during the pendency of his claim for compensation, the legal representatives would be entitled to pursue the claim as in case of death caused in an accident by the use of motor vehicle. Where the insured dies his natural death and not because of injuries suffered in motor accident, the legal representatives would be entitled to pursue the claim to the extent as recognized by Section 306 of the Indian succession Act, that is, the claim on account of loss to the estate of the deceased. " ( 9 ) FURTHER reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellants on a decision in the matter of Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram and others, reported in 2001 (1)JLJ 365 . wherein a Division Bench of this court has considered the word 'estate' and observed as under :"the question is "what is estate?". A person earns for himself and his dependents. He also augments his estate by savings out of his earnings. "estate" has undoubtedly in law a diversity of meaning and variety of signification. It may mean property of a living man or that of a deceased person, which passes to his administrator, executor and legal heirs. It may be movable and immovable. The amount spent on himself and dependents stands exhausted, while the amount added to the estate augments the same unless it is used for meeting expenditures like medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, transport, doctor's fee etc. thereby causing pecuniary loss to the estate. ""further, the existing state of estate may suffer loss by application towards medical expenses, expenditure on travelling, expenditure on attendant, expenditure on diet, expenditure on doctor's fee, reasonable monthly/annual accretion to the estate for certain period etc. thereby causing pecuniary loss to the estate. ""further, the existing state of estate may suffer loss by application towards medical expenses, expenditure on travelling, expenditure on attendant, expenditure on diet, expenditure on doctor's fee, reasonable monthly/annual accretion to the estate for certain period etc. the claimant does not keep separate amount for such unforeseen expenditures during his lifetime. His income is at the most divided in three parts, namely expenditure on himself, expenditure on family and savings to the estate. Therefore, he has to meet such expenditure from out of his estate. There may be circumstance where it is born by his legal representative. Therefore, it is held that the legal representatives can ask for loss to the estate of these items by production of satisfactory evidence unless court is able to draw legitimate conclusion about such expenditures from out of the estate, from the facts and circumstances and on the basis of experience. " ( 10 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the opinion that appellants are entitled to prosecute the appeal for the estate of the deceased. ( 11 ) FROM perusal of record it appears that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal towards medical expenses is on lower side. No amount has been awarded towards the expenses incurred on attenders. The amount of award is enhanced from Rs. 3,000. 00 to Rs. 6,000. 00. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of application. With the aforesaid modification appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. .