JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. challenges the judgment and award dated 5.10.2018 passed by the MACT, Sabarkantha at Idar in MACP No. 300/11.

2. The owner of tractor no. GJ-9 AF-1552 has been made party respondent no. 4 and when the notice of R/Civil Application (for condonation of delay) no. 4117/19 was processed to be served, it had come on record that respondent no. 4 had expired and the bailiff report along with the copy of the death certificate showed the date of death of respondent no. 4 on 19.4.2015.

3. Learned advocate Mr. R.P. Raval, placing reliance on the bailiff report supported by the copy of the death certificate, submitted that the judgment and award would be a nullity since it was against the dead person as respondent no. 2, the owner of the tractor-Kanabhai Kuberbhai Parmar had died even prior to the judgment. Mr. Raval has referred to the judgments in the cases of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nirmalaben Ghanshyambhai Sen rendered in First Appeal No. 4485/18, Narsinhbhai Manjibhai Chhabhaiya vs. Kasam Ishabhai Kumbhar rendered in First Appeal No. 32469/18, United India Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mohanlal Nandiram and Others, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 309/84, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hansaben Khumansinh Padhiyar, rendered in First Appeal No. 4469/06, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sitaben Wd/o Ratanabhai Devabhai Rabari, rendered in Civil Application No. 13526/13 in First Appeal No. 3446/12, to submit that the award is a nullity since the heirs of the owner were not brought on record after his death.

4. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth submitted that the judgments referred to by Advocate Mr. Raval cannot be made applicable to the present matter since they are not decisions under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that referred judgments do not deal with the provisions on Section 155 of the Act, which firmly clarify that the death of the person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to the claim, shall not be a bar to the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings do not abate. Mr. Sheth contended that happening of the event, in this case the death in a vehicular accident is the cause, which has given rise to the claim under the Act and death of the owner of vehicle after such cause, would not bar survival of the cause of action and in such an event, the proceedings could be against the estate or against the insurer and thus, submitted that objection raised by the learned advocate for the insurance Company would not survive in view of provision of Section 155 of the Act.

5. Mr. Sheth has made reference to the judgments in the cases of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Om Parkash, passed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mac App No. 57/21 and allied matters, Shivshankara and Another vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 (5) Scale 218. Advocate Mr. Sheth has submitted that the issue was decided by this Court in the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs. Joseph Francis Mewan, passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1528 of 2009, to bear the pure question of law fell for consideration before the Single Judge. The question so formulated was whether the Tribunal below was justified in passing an award after substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant who died during the pendency of the claim petition in violation of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, wherein Mr. Sheth stated that the provisions of Sections 144, 155 and 169 of the Act were referred along with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and mention was also made to Order 22 Rule 1 of the CPC and Rule 229 of Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Mr. Sheth stated that Section 155 of the Act was referred by observing that it limits the applicability of Section 3