JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal was filed against the three respondents. Respondent No. 1 Poona Ram was sole claimant for compensation on account of accident and question before the Motor Accident & Claims Tribunal, Phalodi and the two defendants were the owner and the driver of the vehicle respectively. The appellant has challenged the passing of the award itself in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the appeal. It was reported by the process server on 29-12-95 that Poona Ram has died on 12-8-94. The next date fixed in notice was 15-1-96. In the order sheet dated 23-1-96 it was recorded that notices of respondent No. 1 received with report that he has died on 12-8-94. Thereafter the application has been moved for impleading legal representatives of the deceased Poona Ram on 24-4-97 i.e. to say about after 15 months the report was made by process server that respondent No. 1 was dead even prior to filing of appeal and the appeal was against a dead person. An application for condonation of delay has also been moved for properly constituting the appeal by making an application for impleading legal representatives of deceased Poona Ram for the first time in appeal. That application has been rejected by the Court vide order under appeal that delay in impleading legal representatives of Poona Ram as respondents is not on account of any sufficient cause shown by the appellants. Since the only claimant respondent No. 1 had died, the appeal could not survive against the remaining respondents on merits. 2. Having perused the application and the record of the case we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that no sufficient cause has been shown in condoning delay in filing appeal against the legal representatives of Poona Ram and not filing appeal against Poona Ram. The appeal originally filed was not properly constituted in as much as it was filed against a dead person. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******