JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 12.05.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in Claim Case No.17 of 2005 whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal in an application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,120/- to the claimants and directed the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company to pay the said compensation amount but as owner of the vehicle could not reproduce valid and effective driving licence of the offending vehicle such as fitness certificate, driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and permit, hence, the learned Tribunal gave the right to recover the compensation amount to the opposite party - respondent no.3- insurance company from the owner of the vehicle.

3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants only for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

4. It is undisputed fact that the respondent no.1-Ranjeet Ram who was the owner of the vehicle has died on 18.06.2009 but no prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of him has been made in this appeal and consequently, vide order dated 09.04.2014, this appeal has stood abated against the respondent no.1- owner of the vehicle.

5. Mr. Amresh Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent no.3- opposite party no.3- insurance company raised the preliminary objection at the time of hearing of this appeal by submitting that since the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company has been absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants because of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the vehicle; as the vehicle in question was driven in absence of any permit and by a driver who was not holding the valid and effective licence on the date of accident as also without a fitness certificate and only keeping the welfare nature of the legislation, the Tribunal has directed the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company to pay the compensation amount but with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and as the appeal has abated against the owner of the vehicle and in case of enhancement of the quantum of compensation by this court as prayed for by the appellants in this appeal, the same will not be binding upon the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. It is next submitted that in this appeal, the appellant has not challenged the portion of the judgment and award by which the learned tribunal absolved the respondent no.3 from paying the compensation amount and saddled the liability of payment of the compensation on the owner of the vehicle who is the respondent no.1 of this appeal. Hence, it is submitted that in the facts of the case, the abatement of the appeal against respondent no.1 amounts that this appeal abates as a whole and the right to sue for the appellants does not survive against the respondent no.3, insurance company. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal be dismissed having abated as a whole.

6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to Section 155 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which reads as under :-

“155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.— Notwithstanding anything 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 such event against his estate or against the insurer.”

And submits that section 155 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 entitles the claimants-appellants to maintain the claim application even after the death of the owner of the vehi