R. Subhash Reddy JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A claim arising out of injuries caused in a motor accident that has reached its fruition more than 20 years later before this Court, which we find extremely distressing. The original claimant and his wife, both did not survive the ordeal to see the fruits of the litigation which is now being pursued by their daughter.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the original claimant was severely injured in a motor accident on 02.05.1999. He filed a claim for compensation Under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 02.11.2006 awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only with 9% interest. Dissatisfied, the original claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court. Unfortunately, he was deceased on 06.11.2015 during the pendency of the appeal, not attributed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The daughter of the claimant, who was an unmarried girl aged 21 years at the time of the accident, was substituted in the appeal. The High Court substantially enhanced the compensation.
4. Shri H. Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the cause of action being personal to the injured abates on his death, which was not caused due to the accident. The legal heir is entitled only to such compensation which forms part of the estate of the deceased. Loss of salary, future prospects, pain and suffering along with attendant charges do not form part of the estate of the deceased. The compensation could not have been fixed by application of multiplier as it was not a case of death caused or occasioned by or due to the accident. The amount awarded by the Tribunal would alone form part of the estate of the deceased. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on two Full Bench decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Kanamma v. Deputy General Manager 
MANU/KA/0485/1990 : ILR 1990 Karnataka 4300, Uttam Kumar v. Madhav and Anr. MANU/KA/0157/2002 : ILR 2002 Karnataka 1864, Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram and Ors. MANU/MP/0479/2000 : 2002(1) MPLJ 249, Pravabati Gosh and Anr. v. Gautam Das and Ors. MANU/GH/0540/2006 : 2009(4) GLR 64. The Respondent being a married daughter is not entitled to any claim for any other loss of estate of the deceased as she was not dependent on the deceased. It is lastly submitted that the High Court has erred in not deducting 1/3rd of the compensation amount towards personal expenses by the deceased.
5. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, submits that no deduction towards personal expenses can be made as the deceased actually incurred expenses ........