Judgment : Aggrieved by the judgment and award, dated 27.05.2003, passed in O.P.No.663 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the said O.P. The facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows: - On 27.01.1999 at about 11.30 am., the first petitioner was walking in front of Mobile Court, Nizamabad, and at that time, a scooter bearing No.AP-25-B-7255 driven by its rider came from opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the first petitioner, due to which, he sustained fracture to his left hand, head and multiple and grievous injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated by Orthopaedic Surgeon. According to the claimants, the first petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and because of the accident, he sustained permanent disability. Hence, the claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The first respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the second respondent-insurance company filed counter disputing the averments made in the claim petition, i.e., the age, avocation and earnings of the first petitioner and also the injuries sustained by the first petitioner in the accident. In support of the case of the claimants, the wife of the first petitioner was examined as P.W-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were got marked. Though no oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B-1-a copy of the F.I.R. was marked. During the pendency of the O.P., the first petitioner died and in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.853 of 2000, dated 07.12.2000, petitioners 2 to 4 who are the wife and sons of the first petitioner were brought on record as his legal representatives. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W-1 and the documents filed in support of the said claim, held that the driver of the said scooter was responsible for causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the first petitioner (deceased) sustaining injuries. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W-1 and the documents filed in support of the said claim, held that the driver of the said scooter was responsible for causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the first petitioner (deceased) sustaining injuries. Relying upon the oral and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/-towards medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering underwent by the first petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Heard Smt S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance Company. Though notices were served on respondents 2 to 4 herein, no efforts were being made by them to engage any counsel. As such, there was no representation on their behalf. The notice on respondent No.5 herein i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle was not served, but the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that since the claim is made against the insurance company, the appeal can be disposed of without hearing the owner of the vehicle. The main ground of attack by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that in view of the death of the first petitioner-injured long after the said accident, the claimants who are brought on record as his legal representatives during the pendency of the said O.P. are not entitled to the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and also as compensation. The said argument is based on the legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, i.e., the personal action dies with the person. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the judgments of this Court in AdapakaEswaramma Vs. N.Chandra Sekhar ( 2001(2) ALT 89 )and United India Insurance Company Limited, Sangareddy Vs. G.Kishen Rao ( 2004(1) ALD 626 ). As seen from the record, there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident took place and the claim sought to be made by the claimants. In Nurani Jamal Vs. Naram Srinivasarao (1994 ACJ 222), a learned single Judge of this Court discussed the aspect of applicability of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona to motor accident claims. In Nurani Jamal Vs. Naram Srinivasarao (1994 ACJ 222), a learned single Judge of this Court discussed the aspect of applicability of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona to motor accident claims. In that case, the claimant filed a claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. During the pendency of the said O.P., he met with another accident and died. The legal representatives of the deceased filed implead petition in the said O.P. and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, a C.R.P. was filed before this Court. The questions that fell for consideration before this Court were whether the claim for damages survives after the death of the injured in a motor accident? and whether the legal representatives can continue the action if there is loss to the estate of the deceased? The learned single Judge of this Court held that the action for damages for personal injuries will not die with the death of the injured and the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has no application where there is loss to the estate of the deceased. The learned Judge arrived at the said finding by relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Kongara Narayanamma Vs. Uppala China Simhachalam (1975 ACJ 448). In Adapaka Eswaramma’s case(first cited supra), this Court, while dealing with the above aspects, after referring to various judgments and in view of the findings given by the Tribunal therein that the death of the deceased was not caused due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, held that the appellants are entitled only to a minimum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment apart from general damages of Rs.5,000/- and that the wife is not entitled to loss of consortium. In United India Insurance Company Limited, Sangareddy’s case (second cited supra), a learned single Judge of this Court dealt with a similar situation. In that case, the first claimant who met with an accident on 06.06.1985 and received multiple injuries and fracture to his right leg, made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, the first claimant met with a natural death and his legal representatives were brought on record as claimants 2 to 5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the first claimant met with a natural death and his legal representatives were brought on record as claimants 2 to 5. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.83,000/- on various counts with interest and costs. The insurance company therein, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. After referring to the cases on the said issue, this Court held that all the items which fall within the scope of loss to the estate of the deceased are entitled to be claimed by his legal representatives. The learned single Judge while awarding compensation towards transportation charges, medical expenses and extra nourishment only, disallowed the claim made towards loss of future earnings and pain and suffering. In view of the above legal position, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under counts which do not fall within the scope of loss to the estate of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased died not because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and as such, the legal representatives of the deceased who are brought on record are entitled only for transportation charges, medical expenses, attendant charges and other general damages. As such, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment as awarded by the Tribunal. However, in Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in 2011 ACJ 2418 , the Apex Court held that the fact that claimants did not independently challenge the award will not come in the way of defending the compensation awarded on other counts. In view of the ratio laid down in the above judgment, though no claim has been made by the claimants with regard to transportation charges, attendant and miscellaneous expenses, as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being a beneficial legislation where the interests of the claimant is the paramount consideration, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards transportation charges, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses incurred during the period of his hospitalization and treatment, which in my view is just and reasonable. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.