The cause of action for personal injuries causing the death of the injured person survives to the heirs and legal representatives under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and the principles underlying it, and the tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act has inherent powers to order substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of a deceased claimant.

( 1 ) THIS Rule raises some important questions. It arises out of a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) THE points for consideration are whether the tribunal under the Act, hearing claim petitions, has power to order substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of a deceased claimant and. If so, under what circumstances and with what effect.

( 3 ) THE Instant proceeding was started as a claim, proceeding by one Augustine Paul Rozario, who filed this claim case for compensation on account of Injuries, sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on March 2, 1965, in Ballygunge Circular Road. During the pendency of the said claim case, the above claimant died on October 5. 1965. This fact was brought to the notice of the tribunal below on November 2, 1965, by the learned Advocate for the deceased claimant and he prayed for time to file a petition for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased. That petition was originally rejected by the tribunal below by its order No. 3, dated November 2, 1965, on the ground that on the death of Rozario his cause-of-action did not survive and so no question of substitution of his heirs did arise. It was also held that the claim case, in the circumstances, had abated. Against that order, the present petitioners, who claimed to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Augustine Paul Rozaria, moved this Hon'ble Court in revision and, eventually, that Rule was made absolute- The Tribunal's order, complained against in the Rule, namely, the order, dated November 2, 1965, was set aside and the case was sent back to the Tribunal below with permission to the present petitioners to file an application for substitution and with direction to the tribunal to consider the said prayer for substitution on merits in accordance with law.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the present application for substitution was filed by the petitioners and this application has, eventually, been dismissed by the learned tribunal below upon the view that although the Instant case was one, where the deceased died as a result of the physical injuries, received in the above accident, and that, in consequence, the cause-of-action did survive and, prima facie, substitution would have been permissible, the prayer for substitution could not be allowed, as the claim of the heirs for compensation would stand on a different footing and would, really, be based on a different cause-of-action. and accordingly, that claim could not be pursued in the present or original proceeding and, further, as the two causes-of-action would be different, there would be no question also of amendment of the instant claim petition. It is against this order that the present Rule was obtained by the petitioners.

( 5 ) THE Rule has been opposed on behalf of the opposite parties substantially on the grounds, given by the tribunal below for rejecting the petitioners' above application and, also, on the ground that the tribunal's view that this was a case, where the original cause-of-action did survive, was erroneous, and, in the instant case, the proceedings could not be continued by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.

( 6 ) FOR proper appreciation of the above questions, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. As we have said above, the deceased concerned, Augustine Paul Rozario was involved in the motor accident in question, which took place on March 2, 1965, and sustained injuries as a result thereof. He was, later on, removed for treatment, originally to Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital, and thereafter, to a nursing home (Arta Sebayatan Nursing Home) and, finally, to Chittaranjan Hospital, where he. eventually died on October 10, 1965, and, according to the finding of the tribunal below, his death was really as a result of the injuries, received by him from the accident in question.

( 7 ) IN spite of the above, however, it has been contended on behalf of the