K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for orders, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of both the parties and the appeal is heard on merits. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the LRs of one Narayanaswamy who was a claimant before the MACT, Chintamani in MVC No. 12/2001. ( 3 ) THE claim petition was lodged by Narayanaswamy claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 03. 10. 2000. The claimant was examined on 14. 08. 2003. The doctor was also examined in chief on 02. 08. 2004. During the pendancy of the case, the claimant Narayanaswamy died on 19. 10. 2004. The Counsel for the claimant on 18. 08. 2005 filed a memo reporting the death of the claimant and an application was also filed by the present appellants herein under Order 22 Rule 3 to come on record as LRs of the deceased and to contest the case. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal dated 18. 08. 2005 on the ground that the LRs cannot continue the claim petition after the death of the claimant. Challenging the order dated 18. 08. 2005, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, an application is filed seeking permission to come on record to contest the case as they were not parties before the Tribunal. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that such permission has to be granted to the claimants to file the appeal challenging the order dated 18. 08. 2005 passed by mact, Chintamani. Accordingly, IA. I/2005 is allowed. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed by the claimant Narayanaswamy on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is also not in dispute that he died during the pendancy of the case. If the claimant dies and if an application is filed by his LRs to come on record, it was the duty of the Tribunal to consider the application filed by the LRs and such application should have been allowed at the first instance. It is also not in dispute that he died during the pendancy of the case. If the claimant dies and if an application is filed by his LRs to come on record, it was the duty of the Tribunal to consider the application filed by the LRs and such application should have been allowed at the first instance. After allowing the LR application of the claimant, it is for the Tribunal to examine whether there is nexus between the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and his death. If there is nexus between the injury and his death, it is for the Tribunal to consider the case of the LRs on merits and if they are entitled for compensation to award the compensation. But without following such procedure, relying upon the judgment of this Court in ILR 2002 KAR 660 has dismissed the appeal on the ground that claim petition does not survives for consideration on account of the death of the injured claimant. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has not considered the facts involved in babu Rao Sataba Manabutakar, deceased by his LRs Vs Doreswamy and others in the aforesaid judgment. This Hon'ble Court has stated that after the death of the claimant Babu Rao, his LRs were brought on record and after recording the evidence the claim petition was dismissed. But in the instant case, even without allowing the LR application has straightaway dismissed the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in dismissing the LR application in limine only on the ground that the LRs cannot prosecute the appeal filed by the original claimant who died during the pendancy of the case. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order dated 18. 08. 2005 has to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Tribunal, Chintamani is directed to consider the LR application and thereafter to find out whether there is nexus between the injury and the death of the claimant and consider the case on merits in accordance with law.