JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellants-claimants, calling in question the judgment and award dated 19.03.2015, in M.V.C. No. 884/2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) passed on the application filed under Section 152 of CPC on the context of amendment of the judgment. Brief facts: 2. On 26.05.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased Vishal Babu was proceeding with one Mr. Jagadhish i.e. respondent No. 3 as a pillion rider in Motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-19-W-5474 from K.P.T. side towards Panamboor side. When they reached K.I.O.C.L. (Kudremukh) Junction, on Udupi-Mangaluru road, a bus bearing registration No. KA-20-B-1978, driven by respondent No. 1 with high speed and in rash and negligent manner, took sudden diversion to Mangaluru-Udupi one way road, in violation of traffic rules and regulation and hit the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the accident, the deceased who was riding as a Pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. 3. Hence, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, by the legal heirs i.e. the mother and the elder brother of the deceased, claiming compensation for the deceased. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,34,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent No. 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation. 4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for respondent and perused the materials on record. 5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,92,000/- 2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 10,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,12,000/- 4. Loss to Estate Rs. 10,000/- 5. Funeral and Obsequies Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 9,34,000/- 6. The claimant No. 1 i.e. the mother of the deceased died on 17.03.2013, during the pendency of the claim proceedings. Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,92,000/- 2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 10,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,12,000/- 4. Loss to Estate Rs. 10,000/- 5. Funeral and Obsequies Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 9,34,000/- 6. The claimant No. 1 i.e. the mother of the deceased died on 17.03.2013, during the pendency of the claim proceedings. It is submitted that on 12.09.2014, the death of the mother who is claimant No. 1 was reported to the Tribunal and also an application came to be filed, under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the cause-title of the petition, but subsequently the said application was withdrawn by the claimant’s advocate and it was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the name of claimant No. 1-Jalaja continued to appear in the causetitle of the petition. 7. It was observed by the Tribunal that even though there was no impediment, after pronouncing the judgment, the Advocate representing the claimants in the cases are permitted to carry out the required amendment in the cause-title to the petition. Further, it was observed that even though claimant No. 1-Jalaja died, but the right to sue survives on claimant no. 2 who is the brother of the deceased, who is also a legal representative of the deceased. 8. The Tribunal has also observed that since claimant no. 1-Jalaja passed away during the pendency of the claim petition, hence, the claim petition so far as it relates to claimant No. 1-Jalaja stands abated. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to an opinion that since the claimant No. 1-Jalaja died and therefore the compensation determined in favour of claimant No. 1-Jalaja of Rs. 9,14,000/- is set-aside and only awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to claimant No. 2 who is the elder brother of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal by an order dated 28.03.2015 has modified the award. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. On 19.03.2015, the Tribunal has determined compensation of Rs. 9,14,000/- in favour of mother of the deceased i.e. claimant no. 1-Jalaja and the remaining compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards Funeral and Obsequies Ceremonies. Therefore, the Tribunal by the order dated 28.03.2015, set-aside the compensation granted 19.03.2015, and granted only Rs. 20,000/- to claimant No. 2. 10. The claimant No. 2 before the Tribunal is the appellant before this Court. 1-Jalaja and the remaining compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards Funeral and Obsequies Ceremonies. Therefore, the Tribunal by the order dated 28.03.2015, set-aside the compensation granted 19.03.2015, and granted only Rs. 20,000/- to claimant No. 2. 10. The claimant No. 2 before the Tribunal is the appellant before this Court. The Tribunal has passed order dated 28.03.2015, by exercising the powers under Section 152 of CPC. Section 152 of CPC is provision for making corrections or alterations or mathematical/clerical corrections errors, but not for considering the case on merits or reviewing the order passed earlier. Therefore, Section 152 of C.P.C. can be exercised only when there are clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment, decree or order, arising from any accidental omission. Therefore, Section 152 of CPC cannot be exercised upon merits involved in the case or reviewing the earlier order. But the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising powers under Section 152 of CPC. 11. While passing an order under Section 152 of CPC by the Tribunal, there is no discussion or observation that there is a clerical or arithmetical mistakes. But the Tribunal has exercised power under Section 152 of CPC on the ground that claimant No. 1-Jalaja died, therefore her part of compensation determined was set-aside/recalled. Therefore, this is nothing but reviewing the earlier order passed on 19.03.2015, which is not permissible. 12. Then the question remains is if one of the clamant dies during the pendency of the claim petition, whether that person’s right is extinguished is the question to be considered. In the present case, the Tribunal while passing order on 28.03.2015, by acting under Section 152 of CPC has observed that on account of death of the claimant no. 1, the claim petition so far as it relates to the claimant no. 1, in respect of Jalaja stands abated and the claimant no. 2 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Therefore, under these circumstances, the following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case involved because of the death of one of the claimant in the claim proceedings, even though the claim petition stands abated against the deceased, but the right sue by other legal basis gets extinguished? Therefore, under these circumstances, the following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case involved because of the death of one of the claimant in the claim proceedings, even though the claim petition stands abated against the deceased, but the right sue by other legal basis gets extinguished? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, claimant No. 2 who is the legal representative of the deceased is entitled for compensation determined on account of other claimant, who died during the claim proceedings, as the compensation to be determined for the claimants becomes heritable as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act on the legal heirs i.e. claimant No. 2, in this appeal? 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submitted that claimant No. 2 who is the sole legal representative is himself entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’ in case of death of his mother, who is claimant No. 1. But not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. He makes distinctions between the ‘loss to estate’ and ‘loss of estate’ and places reliance of judgment of High Court of Kerala reported in the case of Omana P.K. vs. Francis Edwin, 2011 (10) Laws (Ker) 32 (hereinafter referred to as Omana’s case for brevity). Therefore, submitted that claimant No. 2 being surviving sole legal representative is entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’ on account of death of his mother (claimant No. 1) during the claim proceedings. 14. ‘Loss of Estate’ and ‘Loss to Estate’ are two different subjects. This Court in the case of Puttaswamy Gouda vs. R.C. Gangappa Naik, 1994 (1) Laws (Kar) 20 by relying on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Omana referred to supra and after referring to the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at Para-7 as follows: “the assumption that a succession certificate is necessary for payment of compensation to the dependants of a person who dies on account of accident is evidently not correct. The claim by the dependents is not as legal representatives of the deceased but in their own statutory right under section 1-a, fatal accidents act. The claim by the dependents is not as legal representatives of the deceased but in their own statutory right under section 1-a, fatal accidents act. The compensation represented what would have been obtained by them during the life time of the deceased i.e. what he would have provided them in case he had not died as a result of the accident. Section2, fatal accidents act provides for the claim by the estate of any pecuniary loss to the estate. Barring cases of difficulty, in All matters where the accountable party is satisfied that All the dependants are before it and are agreed on the receipt of the amount there should be no objection to the payment of the compensation to them in the proportion they are entitled to. “in view of the foregoing, w e are clearly of the view that the contention of Sri Chinnappa has to be rejected. Not only that, the conclusion of the learned member of the tribunal in the instant case that on account of the death of claimants 1 and 2 during the pendency of the claim petition, the third claimant Puttaswamy gouda, appellant herein would be entitled only to compensation payable under section 92 a of the act for “no fault liability” and not for compensation for “loss of dependency” is wholly incorrect and unsustainable. The learned member of the tribunal failed to apply his mind to the several provisions of the act before he came to that conclusion. In other words, on the death of claimants 1 and 2, viz. Smt. Siddamma wife and Smt. Malavamma, mother of deceased Ramegowda, the appellant Puttaswamy gouda, the third claimant being the son of the deceased Ramegowda is certainly entitled to the compensation payable not only to him as the dependent of, the deceased but also to the deceased claimants 1 and 2 who would have been entitled to it had they been alive.” 15. ‘Loss to Estate’ means when the deceased died and if the deceased is survived by legal heirs, what would be his savings and what would be inherited to other legal heirs that would be ‘loss to estate’ and this compensation under the ‘loss of estate’ is determined on the savings by using capitalization method, which means applying multiplier. ‘Loss to Estate’ means when the deceased died and if the deceased is survived by legal heirs, what would be his savings and what would be inherited to other legal heirs that would be ‘loss to estate’ and this compensation under the ‘loss of estate’ is determined on the savings by using capitalization method, which means applying multiplier. Therefore, what the other dependants would have got upon the death of the deceased that is ‘loss to estate’ and this ‘Loss to estate’ comes to legal heirs of the deceased. 16. On the other hand, the ‘loss of estate’ means compensation to be given to the dependants of the deceased for ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of enjoyment in life/loss of amenities’ etc. Therefore, the ‘loss to estate’ means what would be the savings of the deceased after deducting expenses and the same goes to the dependants, and that is called ‘Loss to Estate’. But awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’ is for abstract things for ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of enjoyment in life/loss of amenities’ and that goes to all the dependants as all these are non-pecuniary terms. 17. Here the contention of the insurance company is that claimant No. 2 is entitled for compensation, at the most for ‘loss to estate’ on account of death of claimant No. 1-Jalaja. This contention of the second respondent-Insurance company, cannot be accepted for the reason that claimant No. 2 is not claiming compensation on account of death of his mother-claimant No. 1-Jalaja during the claim proceedings, but claimant No. 2 is claiming the compensation on account of ‘loss of dependency’ to be determined in favour of the mother (deceased claimant No. 1) but not to him. If there is no mother and only claimant No. 2 being brother survives after the death of the deceased, then claimant No. 2 is only entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss to estate’. But the facts herein are that the legal representatives of the deceased who died in the accident are mother and elder brother. The mother was alive at the time of the accident of the younger son who died in the accident. She was alive at the time of filing the claim petition, but died during the pendency of claim proceedings, after giving evidence before the Tribunal. Just because of the death of the mother, her right cannot extinguish. The mother was alive at the time of the accident of the younger son who died in the accident. She was alive at the time of filing the claim petition, but died during the pendency of claim proceedings, after giving evidence before the Tribunal. Just because of the death of the mother, her right cannot extinguish. The dead person is also having right to be exercised, may be by his/her legal representatives and the right remains. If any party dies during the claim proceedings, the claim proceedings may get abated so far as the death of party is concerned, but the right to sue survives for other claimant. Just because upon death of the party in the suit/claim proceedings, it cannot end the rights of the parties. Abatement of a case upon death of the party is different. Extinguishment of right just because a party dies during the claim proceedings, does not mean that the person’s right extinguished. Therefore, in this regard the Tribunal has committed an error holding that since claimant No. 1 died and hence the claim proceedings stands abated and set-aside the compensation determined of Rs. 9,14,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has failed to make distinction between abatement of proceedings on account of death of the party in the case and extinguishment of rights. These two are different aspects. Therefore, just because the claimant No. 1-Jalaja mother died, even though the claim petition stands abated, but the rights are not extinguished. Rights, in the present case means, wish of claimant No. 1 in taking the benefit of the fruit of litigation by other legal representatives. Furthermore, claimant No. 1-mother was alive during the claim proceedings and if the claim petition is determined before the death of claimant no. 1, then whatever amount determined, which the claimant No. 1 is entitled, even after her death, the said amount will be inherited to the benefit of legal heirs of claimant No. 1. Therefore, under these circumstances the right of claimant No. 1 even though died cannot get extinguished, just because death of claimant No. 1. 19. The mother has filed the claim petition for claiming compensation on account of death of her son. A mother is a legally dependent on the son, when the son dies in the motor vehicle accident, the claimant no. 1 being the mother is entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. 19. The mother has filed the claim petition for claiming compensation on account of death of her son. A mother is a legally dependent on the son, when the son dies in the motor vehicle accident, the claimant no. 1 being the mother is entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. The claimant No. 2 being elder brother of the deceased (also being the son of claimant no. 1) may not be said to be depending on the income of the deceased. But when the amount is determined in favour of the mother, the same would be inherited by claimant No. 2. Therefore, in this context claimant No. 2 is having right of inheritance to the property of claimant No. 1-mother. 20. It is not the case that, claimant No. 2 is claiming compensation under the head ‘loss to estate’ on account of death of the deceased brother in the motor vehicle accident. The mother was alive while filing the claim petition. Therefore, whatever compensation the mother would be entitled under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is her property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Then, whatever amount determined/to be determined by the Tribunal is her absolute property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which is heritable as per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act as enumerated therein. Therefore, whatever amount determined/to be determined would become the property of a woman, and the legal representatives would have ‘right of inheritance’ of the said property. Therefore, on these principles the observations made by the Tribunal on 28.03.2015 are not correct. 21. Claimant No. 1 being mother had filed a claim petition to seek compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ on account of death of her younger son in the motor vehicle accident. Claimant No. 2 is elder brother of the deceased and son of claimant No. 1. Therefore, it is not the case of claiming compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’ by claimant No. 2 on account of death of claimant No. 1 during the pending proceedings but it is case narrated by the claimants that claimant No. 1 being the mother is claiming compensation under the head loss of dependency. 22. As observed above, the mother is entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ but not under the head loss to estate. 22. As observed above, the mother is entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ but not under the head loss to estate. Obviously, whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of dependency’ has become her absolute property and the mother’s right shall not be extinguished just because upon her death. As observed above, even a person died but his/her right is continued. Who is exercising the said right is a different aspect. Therefore, in a claim proceedings if any claimant as in the present case, the mother being claimant No. 1 dies at the most the case stands abated but not the extinguishment of right. In this regard, the Tribunal had committed error. 23. The Tribunal has recorded the compensation amount granted to claimant No. 1-mother on the ground that she died during the pendency of claim proceedings and thus the petition stands abated. Just because the petition gets abated does not mean that the claimant looses the right. Therefore, in this circumstances, I place reliance on the division bench of this Court in the case of Puttaswamy Gowda vs. R.C. Rangappa Naik, 1994 (1) Laws (Kar) 20. In the said case, more or less similar situations where a claimant dies during pending proceedings then upon appeal, the division bench of this Court has formulated the points at paragraph No. 2. The division bench of this Court has discussed the grounds assailed while answering those grounds which are at paragraph No. 2. Therefore, as per judgment of Division Bench of this Court stated supra the claimant No. 2 is certainly entitled to the compensation payable not only to him as a dependent of deceased but also to the deceased claimant No. 1 mother who would have been entitled to it had she been alive. Therefore, even though claimant No. 1 mother dies during the pending proceedings but she would have entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ had she been alive. Therefore, just because death of claimant No. 1, it cannot be said that the compensation cannot be awarded under the head loss of dependency. In this context, the ‘loss of dependency’ shall be awarded. 24. Therefore, just because death of claimant No. 1, it cannot be said that the compensation cannot be awarded under the head loss of dependency. In this context, the ‘loss of dependency’ shall be awarded. 24. The inheritance to that compensation is a different aspect which can be dealt with as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as stated above but fundamentally in the present case, claimant No. 1 being mother of the deceased died in the road traffic accident is certainly entitled compensation under the head loss of dependency. Even though she died but the right of claimant No. 1 does not extinguish upon her death. Therefore, the principle of law laid down by the division bench of this Court stated supra is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, in this regard, recalling the order of grant of compensation of Rs. 9,14,000/- by the Tribunal on account of death of claimant No. 1 mother is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the appellant/claimant No. 2 is entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ accrued to claimant No. 1 even though not necessarily accrued to the claimant No. 2 (appellant herein). Under these circumstances, it is also not sustainable the contentions urged by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the appellant/claimant No. 2 is only entitled compensation under the head loss to estate. Therefore, the judgment delivered by the Tribunal dated 19.03.2015 needs to be confirmed except the quantification of the compensation. 25. Thus for the reasons above sated, the order dated 28.03.2015 passed by exercising the power under Section 152 CPC is liable to be set-aside and accordingly, it is set-aside. 26. Next coming to the quantification of the compensation, the deceased was bachelor of aged 30 years and was working as a Manager in M/s. G. Narayan and Company. Ex.P36 is the salary certificate of the deceased that the deceased was working in the said company for 8 years and salary was being paid to the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. PW-2 is the Proprietor of the said company, had deposed that the deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. PW-2 is the Proprietor of the said company, had deposed that the deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. As per the principles of law laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% income is to be added towards ‘loss of future prospects in life’ sine the deceased was working in the company in permanent nature of job. Since the deceased was a bachelor, half of the income would be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The Tribunal has committed error in taking multiplier according to the age of the mother. But the multiplier is to be taken as per the age of the deceased as per the principles of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘17’. Accordingly, the ‘loss of dependency’ is hereby reassessed and quantified as under: Rs. 12,000 + Rs. 6,000 (50% of Rs. 12,000/-) = Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000 x 50/100 x 17 x 12 = Rs. 18,36,000/- Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 18,36,000/- is awarded under the head loss of dependency. 27. There are two legal heir of the deceased. Hence, each claimant is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ as per the principles of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and Others, 2018 ACJ 2782 . Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- is awarded under the said head. 28. Further, the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head transportation and funeral expenses. 29. Further, as per the evidence, it is proved that the claimant has spent medical expenses of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the same is awarded. 30. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for following sums: S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 18,36,000.00 2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000.00 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,20,000.00 4. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 5. Funeral and Obsequies Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the same is awarded. 30. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for following sums: S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 18,36,000.00 2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000.00 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,20,000.00 4. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 5. Funeral and Obsequies Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 20,66,000.00 31. Therefore, appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 20,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 32. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons the order dated 28.03.2015 is set-aside and the judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 is confirmed but modified the quantum of compensation. 33. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 28.03.2015 passed under Section 152 of CPC on amendment of Judgment is hereby set-aside and judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 884/2009 dated 19.03.2015 is hereby modified holding the claimant No. 2/appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,66,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iii) The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 158 days in filing the appeal. (iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this order, forthwith. (v) Costs made easy. (vi) Draw award accordingly.