Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. The Insurance Company has filed these two appeals against the common award passed by the Claims Tribunal in respect of two claim applications numbered as M.C.O.P.Nos, 127 and 136 of 1994. Such claim applications have been filed by the legal heirs of the two deceased persons. 2. The common allegation in both the applications is to the effect that death was caused on account of the accident caused by one M. Thangaraj, the owner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59 C 1188. The said lorry has been insured with the present appellant. 3. In M.C.O.P.No.127 of 1994, a sum of Rs.4,02,000, has been awarded as compensation, whereas in M.C.O.P.No.136 of 1994, a sum of Rs.1,00,000 has been awarded as compensation. 4. The owner-cum-driver of the lorry, who has been arrayed as respondent No.1 in both the M.C.O.Ps. had remained ex parte. 5. The Insurance Company had filed written statement denying the allegation relating to negligence. It was also claimed by the Insurance Company that the driver of the lorry did not have any valid licence to drive any transport vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 6. It is not disputed that during pendency of the proceedings, the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, viz., respondent No.1 in the claim applications, had expired. Unfortunately, however, the claimants did not take any steps for substitution Without considering the effect of non substitution in the place of the owner, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,02,000 in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 1994 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in M.C.O.P.No.136 of 1994. Such awards are under challenge in the present appeals. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised three main contentions. It is first contended by him that since the owner/respondent in the claim applications had died during pendency of the claim applications, in the absence of any substitution, the claim applications must be taken to have abated and, therefore, the Tribunal should not have granted any compensation fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Secondly, it is contended that the driver of the vehicle, who incidentally was the owner of the vehicle also, did not have a driving licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle (in this case a goods vehicle) and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation. Secondly, it is contended that the driver of the vehicle, who incidentally was the owner of the vehicle also, did not have a driving licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle (in this case a goods vehicle) and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation. Apart from these two contentions, the third contention is to the effect that the finding relating to negligence is not sustainable on the basis of materials on record. 8. The primary liability was obviously on the owner and only because of the statutory provisions and the contract of insurance, the Insurance Company becomes liable. In other words, the Insurance Company under the law is required to indemnify the insured and unless the insurer himself is found liable to pay, there is no liability for the Insurance Company. 9. In the present case, admittedly the owner died during pendency of the claim applications. In the absence of any substitution the claim applications could not have been proceeded further. It is of course true that the counsel for the claimants made endorsement giving up the respondent No 1, viz., the owner. No steps for substitution has been taken on the basis of the wrong notion of the Advocate in this matter. Therefore, it must be taken that the claim applications had abated before the Tribunal on account of non-substitution in the place of the deceased-respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. 10. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the award of the Tribunal is bound to be set aside. However, in our opinion, the claimants should be given a further chance to rectify, the defects and to proceed further in the matter bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner-cum-driver/respondent No.1 in the claim applications. We feel course is required to be adopted in the in of justice as otherwise on account of notion of the advocate concerned, the claim applications would become untenable and claim applications have to be dismissed. 11. It is of course true that steps for substitution are to be taken within the time pres and if such steps are not taken within the stipulated, the proceedings or the suit abate on the expiry of such prescribed period. 11. It is of course true that steps for substitution are to be taken within the time pres and if such steps are not taken within the stipulated, the proceedings or the suit abate on the expiry of such prescribed period. Under Sec. 166(3), as it originally stood, six months period was fixed for filing claim application and under the proviso the Tribunal had jurisdiction to extend the period by 12 months. However Sec. 166(3) has been deleted by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. After such deletion of Sec.166(3), several Courts have taken the consistent view that there is no period of limitation for filing claim application and even the residuary clause under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The aforesaid view receives considerable support from the decisions in United India Insurance Company v. Sarvati Devi, (2001)2 A.C.C.331 (All.) (D.B); Malti Bai v. Ramadhar Singh, 2002 A.C.J. 1623 (M.P) (D.B); Latabai Bhagwan Kakade v. Mohammed Ismail Mohd. Saab Bhagwan, 2002 A.C.J.407 (Bom.) (D.B) and Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others, AIR. 1996 S.C 2155. If the claim application can be filed at any time, it goes without saying that the period contemplated for filing substitution petition can be at least liberally extended. When the claim application itself can be filed at any time, no prejudice would be caused by permitting the claimants to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner/respondent No.1 even after long lapse of time. 12. Having regard to all these aspects, while allowing the appeals, we remit the matter to the Tribunal with the observation that the Claims Tribunal shall give further opportunity to the claimants to bring the legal representatives of the deceased owner/respondent No. I on record and thereafter the matter should be decided afresh in accordance with law. Since we are remitting the matter for fresh disposal, the other questions raised by the Insurance Company are left open and it would be open to such Insurance Company to raise all such questions in accordance with law before the Claims Tribunal. After receipt of the records, the claimants should be given ninety days' time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased-owner/respondent No. 1 in the claim applications. 13. Subject to the above directions, the appeals are allowed. No costs.