Judgment :- 1. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ambasamudram. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The quintessence of the grounds of appeal would run thus: Since the original petitioner in M.C.O.P. viz. Ramiah died during the pendency of the claim petition, which he filed for the injuries sustained by him as well as for the death of his buffaloes, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation as his claim got extinguished along with him. The pith and marrow of the contention of the insurance company is that the principle "Actio Personalis Moritur cum persona" is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 10 were marked and on the side of the respondent R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.5 were marked. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any right to the Legal Representatives, despite the fact that the injured himself died during the pending proceedings before the Tribunal? 6. The learned counsel for the insurance company in all fairness would place reliance of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 385 and Mrs.Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque & Ors. reported in 2007(2) TN MAC 143 and develop his arguments to the effect that in view of the changed legal position, this Court may take a decision. An excerpt from Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 385 would run thus: "18. In the present case the married daughter of the victim (deceased) filed the claim under Section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for statutory compensation on account of the death of her father. As stated, the Application was made under Section 140 of the said Act. That Section makes it clear that "No Fault Liability" is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the Insurer. As stated, the Application was made under Section 140 of the said Act. That Section makes it clear that "No Fault Liability" is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the Insurer. Before an order is passed under Section 140, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the accident arose out of a motor vehicle which resulted in permanent disablement or death and that the claim is made against the owner and the Insurer of the offending motor vehicle." An excerpt from Mrs.Hafizun Begum v. Md.Ikram Heque & Ors. reported in 2007(2) TN MAC 143 would run thus: "13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a Claim Application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency." 7. It is therefore very clear from the perusal of the above cited decisions that when Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is invoked the claimant is entitled to the sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and that tantamounts to the estate of the person who died during the pendency of the proceedings. In such a case the question of invoking with the principle "Actio Personalis Moritur cum persona" does not arise. The Tribunal has correctly invoked Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the dependants and over and above that the compensation was awarded to the tune of Rs.15,000/-for the death of two she buffaloes. Relating to claim of compensation for the death of buffaloes, there is no legal conflict arises at all as they were properties of the deceased. Hence, in this view of the matter no interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.