JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.12.1999, passed by learned Single Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. TS (MAC) 360 of 1997. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam and learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the respondents. 3. Only question, which has arisen in course of arguments for decision, as to whether a claimant-petitioner, who has claimed compensation under the M.V. Act for the personal injury suffered by him, died during pendency of the claim, not inconsequence of the injuries suffered by him due to Motor Vehicle accident, but for some other cause, can his successors/legal representatives continue with the claim case for compensation? 4. Bimal Sinha, since deceased, husband and father of substituted appellant No. 1 (A), Smt. Sipra Bhowmik and 1(B), Sri Santanu Sinha, respectively, met a motor vehicle accident on 17.08.1996 and suffered severe injuries. He filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, claiming compensation of Rs.52,00,000/-, with interest thereon, against the owners and insurers of the offending vehicles i.e. the respondents and that claim petition was registered as case No. TS (MAC) 360 of 1997. The Tribunal in due course, by judgment and award, dated 20.12.1999 awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- with 12% interest per annum, thereon, w.e.f. the date of application i.e. 01.08.1997. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, the injured claimant Bimal Sinha, since deceased, filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, praying for enhancement of the compensation. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the said claimant petitioner Bimal Sinha died a natural death on 01.12.2005, and thereafter, his wife and son i.e. the present appellants, named above filed a petition for adding them as appellants in place of the deceased and as per order passed on 07.03.2006 in CM Appln. No. 63 of 2006, they were added as parties to the appeal in place of the deceased claimant appellant Bimal Sinha. 7. No. 63 of 2006, they were added as parties to the appeal in place of the deceased claimant appellant Bimal Sinha. 7. Indisputably, Bimal Sinha, since deceased filed the claim case before the Tribunal and after disposal of the claim case he filed the present appeal before this Court under Section 173 of M.V. Act, praying for enhancement of the compensation and he died a natural death during pendency of the appeal. The question arises whether his legal heirs/representatives have got a right to continue with the claim case/appeal after the death of the deceased. Section 166 of M.V. Act has prescribed that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the natures specified in Sub-Section 1 of Section 165 of the Act may be made by- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representative of the deceased, as the case may be: .... So according to the above provision of law, an injured may present his/her petition claiming compensation himself/herself, or through any duly authorized agent. In the present case, the injured himself presented the petition claiming compensation, which has been disposed of and he has presented the appeal and while the appeal was pending he died a natural death. Now his wife and son have been substituted as the appellants in his place. In the circumstances, we have to see whether the principles enunciated in the maxim "Actio Personalis Moritur-cum-Persona" is applicable and whether the claim through the appeal presented by the injured has been abated. According to law, a personal claim for the personal injury is liable to be abated in the event of the death of the person. Let us reproduce here Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, which is very relevant for a decision on the issue at hand. Section 306 runs as follows:- Section 306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. Let us reproduce here Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, which is very relevant for a decision on the issue at hand. Section 306 runs as follows:- Section 306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. Illustrations (i) A collision takes place on a railway in consequence of some neglect or default of an official, and a passenger is severely hurt, but not so as to cause death. He afterwards dies without having brought any action. The cause of action does not survive. (ii) A sues for divorce. A dies. The cause of action does not survive to his representative. A bare reading of the above provision would make it clear that the maxim "Actio Personalis Moritur-cum-Persona" is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since it is one of the personal claim and such claim is liable to abate in the event of the death of the person, and therefore, the present appellants have got no right to continue with the appeal. 8. This issue was considered in the case of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das & Ors. 8. This issue was considered in the case of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das & Ors. by the Single Bench of this Court, reported in 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 15, and the learned Single Judge, relying on the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case of Melepurath Sankunni Ezuthassan vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 118 , and the case of M. Veerappa vs. Evelyn Sequeria & Ors., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 556 , has held in paragraph 8 of the judgment thus:- What logically follows from the observations made above, in Melepurath Sankunni(supra), is that when an injured sues or makes an application to a Claims Tribunal seeking compensation, the right to sue does not survive if, during the life-time of the injured, proceedings do not culminate into an award in his favour. If the claim for compensation results into an award in favour of an injured and an appeal is preferred by the person, who is directed to pay compensation awarded to such an injured, the appeal against such an award would not abate and the legal representatives of such an injured can be substituted, for, the award, rendered in favour of such an injured-claimant, forms part of the estate left behind by the deceased. If, however, the claim for compensation is not awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the injured-claimant, having preferred appeal, dies during the pendency of the appeal, the right to sue will not survive in favour of his representatives, for, in such an appeal, what the legal representatives of such a claimant would be doing is to ask for compensation and the right to ask for compensation to be awarded does not survive if the claimant dies before the claim for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour, the cause of death not being the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant. 9. Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Bhagwati Bai & Anr. Vs. Bablu & Ors. AIR 2007 MP 38 has held thus: Section 166 of M.V. Act provides that a legal representative of the deceased can also file claim where death has resulted from the accident. 9. Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Bhagwati Bai & Anr. Vs. Bablu & Ors. AIR 2007 MP 38 has held thus: Section 166 of M.V. Act provides that a legal representative of the deceased can also file claim where death has resulted from the accident. Thus, in a case of personal injury not resulting in death the legal representative of such person who was injured & who dies subsequently not on account of accident but for some other reason cannot maintain an application for compensation for personal injury sustained in an accident under sub-sec (1) of S. 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. Under Section 306 of Succession Act, 1925, the executors or administrators of a deceased will have a right to prosecute or continue any action or special proceeding existing in favour of the deceased at the time of his death, except causes of action for personal injury not causing death of party. Therefore, where the accident does not cause death of a party but only causes personal injury to him, his executors or administrators will not have a right to prosecute or continue to prosecute an application for compensation for personal injury suffered by the party in a motor accident. Hence by virtue of the principle in S. 306 of Succession Act, 1925, the legal representatives of a deceased, who suffers personal injury in a motor accident & who dies subsequently for some other reason, cannot prosecute or continue to prosecute an application for compensation under sub-sec. (1) of S. 166of the M.V.A. 1988. 10. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has frankly conceded that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the appeal is bound to be treated as abated on the death of the deceased Bimal Sinha and the present appellants have no right to sue further. 11. An appeal is a continuation of a suit. In the event of death of the injured appellant, the present appeal, which was filed for compensation for the personal injury suffered by the appellant, is also liable to be abated and the present appellants, being the wife and son of the deceased, have got no right to continue with the appeal. The right to sue and/or to continue with the appeal, by the present appellants does not survive. The right to sue and/or to continue with the appeal, by the present appellants does not survive. Since the appeal has been abated and the appellants have got no right to proceed with the appeal, discussion on other point regarding quantum of compensation has become redundant. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 12. Parties are to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed