K.L. PANDEY, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order dated 30.11.1965 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, dismissed an application for compensation in respect of the death of one Ranwaldas as a result of an accident which ensued when the respondent 2 was driving a motor vehicle owned by the respondent 1 and insured by the respondent 3.

2. The Tribunal held that the application made by Chuharmal (father) alone and not also by Smt. Sadoribai (mother) was incompetent, that on the death of Smt. Sadoribai, her legal representatives had no right to continue the application and that in any event, the application made by them for being brought on record was out of time and state.

3. Having heard the counsel we have formed the opinion that this appeal must be allowed. Although the name of Smt. Sadoribai does not appear in the cause title, the reason perhaps is that Chuharmal himself made the application for her also and this is indicated by paragraph 5 of his application which reads:–

"That the applicant is an authorised agent of Smt. Sadoribai w/o the applicant who is the legal representative of the deceased Ranwaldas. The power of attorney is filed herewith. The applicant is also the father of the deceased Ranwaldas."

In our opinion, Chuharmal made the application for himself as well as the mother of the victim, Smt. Sadoribai and the Tribunal's view that it was not made for her also is erroneous.

4. Admittedly, the provisions relating to abatement contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application to these proceedings. That being so, the legal representatives of Smt. Sadoribai can be brought on record at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. Indeed, claims made in such cases are always in a representative character and no question of abatement on account of failure to bring the legal representatives on record within the prescribed time can arise. For principle, we may refer to State of Rajasthan vs. Parwati Devi, ILR 1966 Rajasthan 148=1966 ACJ 123=AIR 1966 Rajasthan 210. In that case, a widow filed a suit for compensation for the death of her husband caused by injuries sustained in a motor accident. The suit was decreed. The defendant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the widow, who was the only respondent, died. The appellant did not implead the legal representatives in time. It was contended that the appeal had abated. The Division Bench observed:–

"The cases to which we have referred above unmistakably yield the conclusion that in a representative suit brought, for example under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure after complying with the requirements of that provision, the death of any one or more of the parties to such a suit pending the suit or the appeal, cannot result in the abatement of the suit or the appeal. The principle, which seems to us to have been uniformly accepted in these decisions, is that a suit like this is not brought by or against a person in his personal capacity but is brought by or against him as a representative of a class of persons and even if the representative or representative who has or have so brought the suit or against whom a suit is so brought, happen to die, then the other person or persons whom the deceased represented would still be interested in the litigation in the very nature of things and cannot but be held constructively to be parties to the suit and in this type of case the question of abatement cannot properly arise. We should further like to point out that the principle which applies to suits brought under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the sanction of the Court should be held equally applicable to a suit like the present which has to be brought by a party in a representative capacity according to substantive law. Both classes of suits are equally representative and must fall to be governed by a like principle. In accordance with the legal position, which we have discussed above, supp