Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh, in O.P.(MV) No. 2213/2002 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, are the appellants herein. Deceased Ramesh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which happened on 10.7.2000, on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, he died on 25.12.2001. It is after the death of the deceased that the appellants filed the application for compensation for the injuries and disability suffered by Ramesh. But, since the Insurance Company has contended that the legal heirs are not entitled to maintain an action for the personal injuries sustained by the deceased, they filed I.A. No. 496/2005 for amendment of the claim petition treating the claim one for compensation for the death of Rajesh. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent, but found that since the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and they are not entitled to maintain an action for personal injuries of the deceased, dismissed the application for compensation. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court.

2. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the appellants were not able to prove that the deceased Rajesh died on account of the injury sustained in the accident, the Tribunal ought to have treated the claim as one for compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased which the appellants are entitled to claim as his legal heirs. The appellants contend that the Tribunal went wrong in coming to the conclusion that for the personal injuries sustained by the deceased, the appellants are not entitled to make an application for compensation as in the case of death and , the person who sustained injury alone is entitled to maintain an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the provision of the Kerala Tort (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1977, which is an exception to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. By virtue of the provisions of that Act, the legal heirs are entitled to maintain an action for the personal claims of the deceased as well is the contention. So, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application on that ground, they would submit. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to maintain the claim for compensation for the personal injuries sustained by deceased Ramesh and they are entitled to be awarded the compensation for the personal injuries of the deceased since the compensation enures to the estate of the deceased, which the claimants are entitled to succeed to.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the injured did not file the application during his life time, the appellants, as the legal representatives, are not entitled to maintain an action for compensation independently as a personal action for compensation for injuries of the deceased would not survive to the legal heirs. So, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the application.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.

6. It is an admitted fact that Rajesh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and the Tribunal also found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. It is also an admitted fact that he sustained severe injuries and underwent treatment for long time and thereafter he died later on 25.12.2001. It is true that there is no evidence adduced on the side of the appell