( 1 ) THIS Miscellaneous First Appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 26. 12. 2000 passed in M. V. C. No. 717 /1992 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT-IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment impugned, particularly regarding fastening of liability on it.

( 2 ) SRI P. B. Raju, learned Counsel for appellant, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment and award of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid so far as fastening of liability on the Insurance Co. is concerned. The material on record also shows that as on the date of accident, patently, the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess valid Driving Licence and during pendency of the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle died and L. Rs. of the owner had not been brought on record. The learned counsel relied upon the following decision is support of his contentions: 1) ILR 1995 KAR 28701 2) AIR 2003 SC 6072 placing reliance on the ratios laid down in the said decisions, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, Sri M. Babu, learned Counsel for respondentsclaimants, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and valid. The learned Member of the Tribunal had considered the facts in issue in the right perspective and had arrived at right conclusion in fastening the liability on the Insurance Co. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 155 of the M. V. Act, Order 22 Rule 4a of the C. P. C. and the followig decisions: 1) AIR 1984 KAR 2283 2) AIR 2001 SC 14194 3) ILR 2002 KAR 10885 4) Unreported decision of this Court rendered in M. F. A. No. 5368/ 1999 (D. D. 28. 11. 2002)6. New India Assurance Co. , Shimla vs Kamla k. G. Srinivasamurthy vs Smt. Habib Khathun rangappadas @ Ranganatha vs K. Srinivasa Rao placing reliance on the ratios laid down in the said decisions, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

( 4 ) THE Court has carefully gone through the material on record and has also given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar.

( 5 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the appellant has raised two fold submissions while assailing the judgment and award of the Trial Court. Firstly, the appellant contends that the owner of the vehicle in question had died during pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal and his L. Rs. had not been brought on record and this is a serious lacuna. Let me consider this contention in first instance. The material on record clearly shows that the claim petition had been filed arraying the owner of the vehicle in question as R-1. During pendency of the claim petition, a memo had been filed by the claimants stating that the owner of the vehicle had died and in spite of efforts being made, the L. Rs. of the owner could not be ascertained. The Insurance Company had not raised its little finger in this regard.

( 6 ) FOR better appreciation of the facts in issue, it is felt necessary to quote the provisions of Section 155 of the M. V. Act, which run thus: 155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.- notwithstanding any thing contained in Section 306 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer.

( 7 ) IT is also necessary to mention the provisions of Order 22 rule 4a C. P. C. which run thus: 4a. Procedure where there is no legal representative. (1)IF, in any suit, it shall appear to the Court that any party who has died during the pendency of the suit has no legal representative, the Court may, on the application of any