ORDER :

1. M.A.C.M.A.No.3023 of 2018 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the correctness of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012.

2. C.R.P.No.5383 of 2018 is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. questioning the correctness of order dated 12.07.2018 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.333 of 2018 in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012. Since both the matters are interrelated, they are heard together and are now disposed of by this common order.

3. Sri S.Chandrasekar was a Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. He was travelling in a car being driven by a driver and on 06.02.2012 at about 3:30 P.M. an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-03-K-2085 came in the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road and dashed the car of the judicial officer in which the judicial officer suffered various injuries all over the body and also suffered fractures to his left knee and left shoulder. The injured judicial officer filed M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation as against respondent No.1, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2, the insurance company. The matter was pending before the Tribunal at Chittoor and the evidence on behalf of both parties was completed and arguments on behalf of the claimant were heard and for the insurance company also arguments were submitted and while the matter was coming up for hearing arguments on behalf of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, it was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal that the claimant-judicial officer Sri S.Chandrasekar died on 02.04.2018. Thus, at the verge of completion of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the injured claimant died. His wife and a daughter (minor) filed I.A.No.333 of 2018 under Order XXII Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. praying the learned Tribunal to grant permission to them to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased claimant. The owner and driver did not choose to appear and protest as against that prayer. The insurance company filed its counter. After enquiring into that application, the learned Tribunal by assigning its own reasons dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by it, C.R.P.No.5383 of 2018 is filed before this Court by the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Tribunal having dismissed I.A.No.333 of 2018 holding that the case abated, it dismissed M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 as abated. Questioning that order, M.A.C.M.A.No.3023 of 2018 is filed by the legal representatives. The grounds urged in the revision as well as the appeal are common.

4. In the present proceedings in spite of service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company made appearance.

5. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal and revision, this Court is to notice as to what transpired before the learned Tribunal. The fact that the injured claimant Sri S.Chandrasekar died on 02.04.2018 and the fact that he was survived by his wife and minor daughter and that they are his legal representatives are not disputed both before the learned Tribunal as well as in this Court. As could be seen from the material papers and the impugned orders, the cause of death of the original claimant was not really brought on record by both parties. However, from the impugned orders, one could see that during the course of hearing the application for impleadment of legal representatives, the learned Tribunal was informed by the learned counsel for insurance company that the original claimant died because of cancer. Acting upon that, an observation was recorded that the death of claimant was not out of injuries he sustained in the accident, but it was a natural death. Du