1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (for short the Tribunal) in file No. 237 Claim of 1996 delivered on 29.3.2004. 2. One Atma Singh Rana lodged a claim petition before the Tribunal on 24.10.1996 stating therein that while traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No. JKQ 559 he met with an accident on 23.5.1996 at Jammu-Srinagar National Highway near Samroli, Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur due to which he received 15% injuries. Respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar was driving the vehicle whileas respondent-2 is the owner thereof; the vehicle was insured with the respondent -3 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. During the pendency of the claim petition said Atma Singh expired and his legal representative, the present appellant was brought on record. The claim petition was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal on two main grounds, firstly that the injured was not entitled to any compensation as he was a gratuitous passenger traveling in the offending truck; secondly that the injured has died during the pendency of the claim petition, the death has not been caused due to the injuries received by said Atma Singh and that there has been no loss to the estate left behind by the injured as such the claim petition has abated. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the said findings on various grounds inter-alia that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the case and has not properly applied the law on the subject to the facts of the case. 4. Heard. I have considered the matter. 5. I have gone through the Tribunals record. 6. It is observed by the Tribunal that the injured was gratuitous passenger traveling in the offending vehicle and that the Motor Vehicles Act does not enjoy any statutory liability on the owner to insure any passenger traveling in a goods carrier. The Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company has no liability for the death or injury to the passenger traveling gratuitously or unauthorisedly in a goods carrier. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings of the Tribunal would submit that the view taken is not correct. The Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company has no liability for the death or injury to the passenger traveling gratuitously or unauthorisedly in a goods carrier. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings of the Tribunal would submit that the view taken is not correct. He submits that there is a change in the law now and that the view of the Tribunal is based on the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passenger and that this is of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force. He has relied on New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 235 and M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur 2004 (1) ACJ 323 in support of his contentions. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has on the other hand relied on New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. ACJ 2003(1) 1 and Orintial Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kesri Singh & Ors. CIMA No. 172/03. 9. Very recently this Court has in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kesri Singh & Ors. CIMA No.472/03 dealt with the matter and relying on a recent Apex Court judgment in National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors. 2008 (1) SCC 423 laid down that the Insurance Co. is not liable for the death of any passenger traveling in a goods carrier (truck). The Court observed as under:- "This controversy has been finally settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Company ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) SCC 423. It was held that section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contemplate that a goods carrier was carrying a large number of passengers with a small percentage of goods as the insurance policy considerably covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative. The provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, and the insurer would not be liable therefor. The provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, and the insurer would not be liable therefor. The words "injury to any person" in section 147 (1) (b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger traveling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. Since the judgment is based on a recent judgment of the Apex Court which directly deals with the issue, I could not find any ground to take a different view. I, therefore, fully agree with and rely on the judgment of this Court in Kesri Singhs case and find that in view of this settled legal position the contention of the appellant on this count cannot be accepted. So far the second ground taken by the Tribunal is concerned here again I do not find any merit in the present appeal. 10. As would appear from the judgment impugned, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Tribunal that he is not claiming compensation for the death of the original petitioner Atma Singh and that he claims it only for the injuries which the original petitioner has received. 11. I have gone through the record of the case but could not find any evidence to establish that the death of Atma Singh was a direct consequence of the injuries received by him in the accident. PW Dr. Anil Gupta has ruled out such a possibility. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and has returned a similar finding on this basis. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the case and has not decided it correctly and that on the facts of the case the appellant being the legal representative of the deceased, was entitled to the compensation for the injuries received by the deceased. In this behalf he has relied on Adapaka Eswaramma & Ors. v. N. Chandra Sekhar 2002 ACJ 1544, Shiwando Prabhakar & Ors. v. Suklrwinder Singh & Ors 2002 ACJ 847, Harkirat Singh v. Inderjit Kour & Ors 2000 ACJ 250, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor 2005 (3) ACJ 199 and Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anr 2006 (2) ACJ 346. v. N. Chandra Sekhar 2002 ACJ 1544, Shiwando Prabhakar & Ors. v. Suklrwinder Singh & Ors 2002 ACJ 847, Harkirat Singh v. Inderjit Kour & Ors 2000 ACJ 250, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor 2005 (3) ACJ 199 and Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anr 2006 (2) ACJ 346. : In Adapaka Eswarammas case the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that where a claim petition is filed by an injuried in vehicular accident, but the claimant dies during the pendency of the petition and there is no evidence that the deceased died because of injuries sustained in the accident, the doctrine `aclio personalis moritur cum persona is not applicable and the legal representatives are entitled to compensation under, `medical expenses, `extra nourishment and `general damages. 13. In Shiwando Prabhakars case and Harkirat Singhs case Punjab & Haryana High Court took a similar view and it was held that in such a situation right to sue survives to the legal representatives of the deceased in respect of the claim on account of loss to the estate. 14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor (supra) the Court found that such a petition would survive under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act read with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 15. In Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anor. (supra) Karnataka High Court has held that the representatives of the deceased who died as a result of the accident can claim compensation for the injuries caused to the deceased. 16. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Kannamma v. Deputy general Manager 1991 ACJ 707 (F.B), Shantabai Dube & anor. V. Kanhaiyalal & anor. 1995 ACJ 706, Rameshwari Paliya and Anor v. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anor 2001 ACJ 850 and Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anor 2002 ACJ 1828 (FB). 16. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Kannamma v. Deputy general Manager 1991 ACJ 707 (F.B), Shantabai Dube & anor. V. Kanhaiyalal & anor. 1995 ACJ 706, Rameshwari Paliya and Anor v. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anor 2001 ACJ 850 and Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anor 2002 ACJ 1828 (FB). In Kannammas case a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court examined the issue in detail, on a reference made to it, the Court answered the questions referred to it thus: "Considering this question, the Full Bench of this court in Kannammas case, 1991 ACJ 707 (Karnataka), has held thus: i. the common law rule `actio personalis moritur cum persona as embodied in section 306 of Indian succession Act since applies to India, a claim by a person for compensation for personal injuries caused in a motor accident does not, on that persons death not being the consequence of such injuries, survive to his/her legal representatives; ii. Cause of action for personal injuries being founded on tort ( motor accident caused by the tortfeasor), injured persons claims for damages under heads recognized by common law and not by statute, based on such tort and not independently of it, cannot, on such persons death, survive for prosecution by his/her executors or administrators ( or legal representatives) since section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, in express terms declares that the cause of action in favour of a person for personal injuries (tort) does not survive on such persons death to his/her executors or legal representatives; iii. A claim by a person for compensation for personal injuries, be it pending before the Claims Tribunal, be it pending in the First Appellate Court or be it pending in the Second Appellate Court, does not survive on such persons death not caused as a consequence of personal injuries, to his legal representatives; iv. A claim by a person for compensation for personal injuries, be it pending before the Claims Tribunal, be it pending in the First Appellate Court or be it pending in the Second Appellate Court, does not survive on such persons death not caused as a consequence of personal injuries, to his legal representatives; iv. A claim of a person for compensation for personal injuries if has resulted in an award of the Claims Tribunal or decree of the appellate court, survives to his legal representatives on his death, even if such death is not the consequence of personal injuries sustained by him and hence, if such award or decree is disputed in the First Appellate court, or the Second Appellate Court, the same could be resisted by the legal representatives of the claimant; v. A persons claim for compensation for personal injuries under the head loss to his/her estate, can, on his/her death as a consequence of such injuries, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives, if they do not include a claim for compensation under that head, as and when they file a claim petition under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act, on the death of the person injured." 17. After elaborate discussion and detailed order, the Full Bench answered thus: i. A claim petition presented under section 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) cannot, on such persons death occurring not as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained from a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives; but ii. A claim petition presented under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 but 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, by prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only insofar as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss to estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident." 18. (loss to the estate) can , on such persons death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, by prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only insofar as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss to estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident." 18. This judgment/order was followed by another Full Bench of the same High Court in Uttam Kumars case 2006 (2) ACT 346. 19. A petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act filed by a person injured in a motor vehicular accident, for the compensation for personal injuries, expenses, loss of income abates with the death of such person provided the death does not occur due to such injuries but such a petition would sustain and may be prosecuted by his/her legal representative if it relates to loss to the estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in such accident. 20. Since on consideration of the first ground it was found that the main petition was not maintainable we need not to go to the question: is the claim related to loss to the estate of deceased Atam Singh due to bodily injuries sustained by him? 21. In these circumstances this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 22. This Judgment is announced by me on 5-2-09 in terms of Rule 138 (3) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999