Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Original claimant - Tahkan Das Khushlani suffered injuries arising out of the use of motor vehicle that led to filing of claim petition being C.T. No. 113/2010 against respondents herein claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him. During pendency of the claim petition, original claimant - Tahkan Das Khushlani died on 31.03.2012. The petitioner herein namely Santosh Khushlani, son of original claimant- Tahkan Das Khushlani filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substitution along with application for condonation of delay in filing the same on 10.07.2012.

2. The Claims Tribunal, by its order dated 17.01.2013, has rejected the substitution application on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown in filing the application for substitution of legal heir of original claimant and the claim petition for compensation was dismissed as abated.

3. Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of Claims Tribunal, instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

4. Shri Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 240 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short "Rule,1994'), Order 22 of CPC has not been made applicable as the claim application is filed only for grant of compensation and, therefore, applying the provisions of Order 22 of the CPC, application for compensation cannot be rejected as abated.

5. Shri Somya Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that since the legal representatives of the original claimant/deceased were not brought on record within the period of limitation, as such, it has rightly been rejected by the Claims Tribunal.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

7. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides in holding any enquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

8. In exercise of rule making power, M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 has framed Rule 240 of Rules, which provides procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries, which states as under:-

"240. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries.- Application of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, the following provisions of the First Scheduled to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) namely, those contained in Order 5, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order 9, Order 18, Rules 3 to 10, Order 16, Rules 2 to 21, Order 17, Order 21 and Order 23, Rules 1 to shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be applicable thereto."

9. A careful perusal of Rule 240 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,1994 would show that the provisions contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

10. Even otherwise, the question raised in this petition is no longer res-integra and stands authoritatively concluded by following decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

11. Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Chuharmal & others v. Wali Mohammad & others (1968 JLJ 1013) have clearly held that provisions relating to abatement contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as the proceedings are representative in character & relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Parwati Devi, 1966 ACJ 123 : AIR 1966 Raj.210 and held as under :-

"(9) Admittedly, the provisions relating to abatement contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to these proceedings. That being so,