JUDGMENT : Since both the appeals are arising out of the common accident, whereby both the claim petitions were partly allowed, hence, they are taken up together for common disposal. 2. MFA No.1461/2012 is posted for admission, whereas MFA No.1462/2012 is already admitted. Though, MFA No.1461/2012 is posted for admission, since the connected appeal is admitted, with the consent of both the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 4. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 20-12-2011 passed in MVC No.1783/2008 and MVC No.1784/2008 by the X Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) 5. The brief facts of the cases are : On 16-10-2007, at about 7.00 p.m., while the petitioners in both the claim petitions were proceeding in a Motorbike bearing registration No.KA-05-EB-1866, slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of Nonavinakere Gungurumale Road in order to go to Lakkirampuram, when they reached near PichenahalliMakanahalli village, at that time, the driver of the TractorTrailer bearing No.KA-44-T-90/91 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motorbike of the petitioners. Due to the impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Both the injured were admitted to Hospital and were treated as inpatients. They had undergone surgery; and have spent huge money towards their treatment, conveyance and nourishment. It is the case of the petitioners that they were doing coolie work and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the accident, they have suffered loss of earning capacity. Hence, they filed the claim petitions seeking compensation. 6. Upon service of notice, both the respondents being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle appeared through their respective counsel and denied all the allegations in the claim petitions, the treatment taken by them; and the amount spent towards their medical treatment. Further, it is submitted that the motorcyclist dashed against the parked vehicle and that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. 7. In order to prove the case of the claimants/petitioners, they got examined themselves as P.W.1 in each of the cases and got examined the doctor who treated them as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10. Further, it is submitted that the motorcyclist dashed against the parked vehicle and that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. 7. In order to prove the case of the claimants/petitioners, they got examined themselves as P.W.1 in each of the cases and got examined the doctor who treated them as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the respondents, the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle got himself examined as R.W.1, however, he has not marked any document in support of his evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in both the cases allowed both the claim petitions by awarding a sum of Rs.2,45,650/- in respect of the claimant in MFA No.1461/2012 and Rs.1,49,750/- in respect of the claimant in MFA No.1462/2012 with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization by the judgment and award dated 20-11-2011. The breakup of compensation is as under: In MFA No.1461/2012 Towards loss of income Rs.1,45,8000.00/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.25,000.00/- Towards loss of amenities in Life Rs.25,000.00/- Towards medical expenses Rs.11,350.00/- Towards loss of income during laid up period. Rs.13,500.00/- Towards disfigurement Rs.05,000.00/- Towards permanent disability Rs.05,000.00/- Towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges Rs.15,000.00/- Towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges Rs.15,000.00/- Towards loss of income Rs.82,650.00/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.15,000.00/- Towards loss of amenities in Life Rs.15,000.00/- Towards medical expenses Rs.08,600.00/- Towards loss of income during laid up period. Rs.13,500.00/- Towards permanent disability Rs.05,000.00/- Towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charge Rs.10,000.00/- Total Rs.1,49,750.00/- Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner of the Tractor-Trailer has preferred these two appeals. 9. It was fairly submitted by both the counsel that the offending Tractor-Trailer was not insured. Thus, the matter of liability was considered between the owner and the petitioners/claimants. 10. The first respondent in both the cases Sri. Hanumanthaiah is said to be the owner and the second respondent-Sri. Parameshwarappa is the driver of the offending Tractor-Trailer. Since the said vehicle was not insured, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the driver. 11. Both the counsel submitted that the appellant in MFA No.1461/2012 died on 16032014 and amendment to the cause title was carried out on 21-02-2015. Parameshwarappa is the driver of the offending Tractor-Trailer. Since the said vehicle was not insured, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the driver. 11. Both the counsel submitted that the appellant in MFA No.1461/2012 died on 16032014 and amendment to the cause title was carried out on 21-02-2015. However, it is seen that the cause title of the appeal memorandum is not amended in accordance with law. The names of the legal representatives of the appellant is not mentioned in the cause title. (At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant would seek permission to effect amendment. Regard being the fact, the amended appeal memorandum is already filed. The counsel is permitted to amend the cause title.) 12. In the oral context and circumstances of the case, the available material and submissions are sufficient for disposal of the cases and the same are hereby disposed off. The legal representatives of the appellant are said to be his sons who have come on record. However, in the light of the liability being saddled on the owner of the vehicle who is no more, the liability what was fastened on the owner will be passed on to his legal representatives/legal heirs, provided there is sufficient estate of the deceased appellant/Hanumanthaiah to meet the liability. As such, there cannot be a personal decree on the legal representatives. Insofar as saddling the liability on the owner is concerned, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the appeals. However, personal decree cannot be passed against the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, but only the estate of the deceased Hanumanthaiah be made liable. 13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.