The legal representatives of a deceased claimant in a motor accident claim case have the right to sue and to claim enhancement of compensation by contesting an appeal further after the death of the original claimant.

( 1 ) (ON I. A. No. 4763/95) Sbri S. Patwa for Appellant. Shri S. V. Dandvate for Respondent No. 4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.

( 2 ) THIS application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L. Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L. Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M. V. Act for convenience ). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No. 4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M. V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M. V. Act are benevolent and specially brought in force for the purpose avoiding delay in getting the relief from Civil Courts by filing other suitable remedies. Thus, keeping in view the benevolent aspect of the enactment and the recent amendment by which the previously indicated time limit of six months has been removed, I hereby condone the delay of nine months by keeping in view the special circumstances of this matter only.

( 3 ) THE second point which has been agitated is whether the appeal arising out of a controversy created by the award passed by the Tribunal stands abated on account of death of claimant or not. Shri Patwa has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Chuharmal Issardas v. Haji Wali Mohammed, 1968 ACJ 391, judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Maimuna Begum v. Taju, 1988 ACJ 417 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of New Suraj Transpert Co. v. Ruby General Insurance Co. , 1972 ACJ 416. He canvassed that provisions of O. 22, C. P. C. are not applicable to appeals arising out of the controversy caused by the award passed by the Tribunal in motor accident claim cases. Shri Dandvate, counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 insurance company placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Melapurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalakutty Nair, 1986 ACJ 440 : (AIR 1986 SC 411 ).

( 4 ) IN the matter of Chuharmal v. Haji Wali Mohammed (1968 ACJ 391) (supra) Division Bench of this Court held that provisions relating to abatement contained in O. 22 of C. P. C. have no application to these proceedings (proceedings in respect of claim preferred by claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ). The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held in Maimuna Begum's case (1988 ACJ 417) (supra) that the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona cannot bar the right to sue claim by the L. Rs. of the deceased claimant because the maxim has been criticized even in the country of its origin as unjust, obscure in its origin, inaccurate in its expression and often resulting in grave injustice. Indian Courts have generally taken a view that the maxim should not be applied as a part of our law except, of course, where specifically engrafted in a statute and that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience should be followed. Punjab and Haryana High Court observed in New Suraj Transport Co. 's case (1972 ACJ 416) (supra) that a reading bf S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that the applications for compensation are filed. In a representative capacity. In case any person who has filed the claim dies the proceedings started in a representative capacity do not abate. If the other claimmants are already on record, they can continue the proceedings. If the deceased was the sole claimant, his legal representatives or the persons for whose benefit the claim had been filed, could be brought on the record.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Melepurath Sankunni (AIR 1986 SC 4