Judgment 1. The petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2011, aged 50 years, bullock cart owner cum driver, doing coconut business and cultivation, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, met with an accident on 10.4.2000. He filed the claim petition for compensation, claiming Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. During the pendency of the petition in 2004, the petitioner died and the legal representatives of the petitioner Thirunavukkarasu came to be impleaded as petitioners 2, 3 and 4 as per the order passed in I.A.No.254 of 2007, dated 5.9.2007. The said M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2001 has been ordered to be transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge, East Track Court, Thiruppattur and renumbered as M.C.O.P.No.220 of 2004. 3. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,150/- and the break up details are as follows: Sl. No. Claim of Head Claim awarded by the tribunal 1. Permanent disability 40% Rs.40,000 2. Medical expenses Rs.3,600 3. Medical expenses Rs.10,150 4. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,400 5. Repair expense to tyre cart Rs.24,000 6. Loss of Bullock Rs.15,000 7. Transport Expenses Rs.8,000 Total Rs.1,13,150 4. As against the award passed, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the main contention that the tribunal is wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards permanent disability (at 40%) when it is not proved that the death of injured was only on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. In other words, the contention is that the amount awarded at Rs.40,000/-towards 40% disability is not justifiable as it will not enure to the benefit of the legal representatives. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the award has not been granted under appropriate head, which is to be considered when there was permanent disablement and consequent loss of enjoyment of amenities and loss to estate. It is pointed out that the tribunal has not considered to grant any compensation on account of loss of estate and loss of expectation of life. 6. Therefore, it is appropriate that the tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of expectation of life. Deducting these two amounts from a sum of Rs.40,000/-, which was awarded towards partial disability, the award to the extent of Rs.20,000/- has to be set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,13,150/- to Rs.93,150/-. 7.1. Deducting these two amounts from a sum of Rs.40,000/-, which was awarded towards partial disability, the award to the extent of Rs.20,000/- has to be set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,13,150/- to Rs.93,150/-. 7.1. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company that even though the claimant/petitioner died in the year 2004, the impleading petition was filed only in the year 2007 and therefore, for the interregnum period, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest. This contention is well founded and the payment of interest would exclude the period from 2004 to 2007. 7.2. It is represented that already the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount of compensation. In view of the Order passed, the Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.20,000/-with proportionate interest, apart from the interest for the period 2004 to 2007. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.