Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. The Original applicant, Geeta Devi, the daughter of the present appellant died during the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court, B. S. City and the present appellant was substituted in her place. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the present appellant was not entitled to compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. 2. The learned Labour Court has completely misdirected himself in holding that the present appellant had no legal right to pursue the application on the death of his daughter. The appellant was not required to prove that he was dependent on the earning of her daughter. The question is whether he had the right to be substituted to in place of her deceased daughter. This was not a case of fatal accident. The deceased had claimed compensation for permanent disablement. In the instant case, the appellant was substituted in place of his deceased daughter who had applied for compensation. 3. Further question arises for consideration is whether Geeta Devi was entitled to file an application for compensation. There is total lack of evidence to establish that the deceased was employed by the respondent No. 1. Counsel for respondent submitted that there is no evidence that there was relationship of Master and servant between the deceased and the respondent. The application, therefore, under Workmens Compensation Act was misconceived. An application under Sec. 110 A of Motor Vehicle Act should have been filed instead of application under Workmens Compensation Act. The application therefore, has been rightly dismissed by the Labour Court. 4. Before the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Kannamma V/s. Deputy General Manager Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1991 ACJ 707 , a question came up for consideration whether a claim petition presented under Sec. 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc., if the claimant dies during the pendency of the petition, can his legal representative come on record and continue the proceeding ? Mr. Mr. Venkatchala, J. speaking for the Full Bench observed that the Motor Vehicles Act did not expressly provide for substitution of legal heirs if the claimant dies during the pendency of the claim case. Learned Judge referred to sec. 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which bears on the said question, insofar as it is material, reads ; "All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute..... any action or special proceeding existing in favour..... a person at the time of his decease, survive to..... his executors of administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault as defined in the Indian Penal Code, or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party..." 5. Full Bench referred to the decision of die Supreme Court in Maiepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassen V/s. Thakittil Geopalankutty Nair reported in 1986 ACJ 440 in which the Supreme Court dealt with the causes of action of an injured in a tort surviving or otherwise on the death of the injured to his legal representatives. Supreme Court held that legal representatives, in view of Sec. 306 of the Indian Succession Act was entitled to pursue, the action the right to compensation on the death of the original claimant was not extinguished. The Full Bench after referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts held as follows : "A claim petition presented under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the person sustaining body injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc. (loss to the estate) cannot, on such persons death occurring not as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained from a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/their legal representatives, but ii. A claim petition presented u/s. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc, (loss to the estate), can on such persons death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representative only insofar as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss to the estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident." 6. In Narinder Kaur and Ors. In Narinder Kaur and Ors. V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1991 ACJ 767, it has been held as follows :- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The principles of actio personalis moritur cum persona relates only to the personal or bodily injuries and not to the loss caused to the estate of the deceased by the tortfeasor. In its applicability, the principle stands considerably. modified by the provisions of Sec. 306 of the Indian Succession Act which clearly lays down that all demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or Special proceedings existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his death survive except causes of action for defamation, assault and other personal injuries not causing death of the party etc. which come to an end with the death of injured. The loss to the estate is thus not covered by the exceptions contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. While taking this view, we are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Malepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan V/s. Thakittil Geopalankutty Nair, (Supra) and M. Veerappa V/s. Evelyn Sequeira, AIR 1988 SC 506 . The claimants as legal representatives of the original claimant were, as such, entitled to be substituted in his place with a view to continue the proceedings in the case and to have a decision on the claim in respect of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased. So far as the first ground on which the Tribunal dismissed the claim application is concerned, the same cannot be sustained in view of the decisions considered above. The appellant was entitled to pursue the claim after he was substituted in place of deceased claimant. 7. However, having gone through the records a I nd the finding of the Labour Court, it is clear that there is no evidence of master and servant relation between the deceased and the respondent. The findings of the Labour Court is that evidence is not sufficient to accept the case of the applicant that the deceased at the time of accident was in employment of respondent-owner of the trucks is correct. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of by giving opportunity to the appellant to file claim under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of by giving opportunity to the appellant to file claim under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. If such an application is filed before the Claims Tribunal, the claims Tribunal shall entertain the application after condoning the delay since the appellant was pursuing his remedy before a wrong forum. The application however must be filed within three months of the receipt of certified copy of the judgment and the counsel for the appellant may advise the appellant to file the application before the appropriate Claims Tribunal. 9. This appeal is disposed of.