JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is on the dockets of this Court right from 26th February, 2010. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 7th November, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.C. No. 18-S/2 of 2008, titled as Shri Surinder versus Smt. Meera Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,33,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be granted in favour of the claimant-Shri Surinder and against the respondents, i.e. the owner & the driver and the appellant-insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant- insurer has questioned the same by the medium of this appeal. 3. In terms of order, dated 5th March, 2012, the Tribunal was asked to provide opportunity to the parties in order to lead evidence viz-a-viz the disability certificate, Ext. PW-4/A, and the record was also sent back with a direction to the Registry to call back the record after the findings are returned by the Tribunal on this aspect. 4. In sequel to these directions, the Tribunal asked the parties to lead evidence on the issue and returned findings on 13th June, 2012. 5. The appeal came up for consideration before this Court on 8th November, 2012, when CMP No. 785 of 2012, moved by learned counsel for the claimant bringing the factum of death of the claimant- Shri Surinder to the knowledge of the Court, discharging his duties in terms of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), came to be allowed. The appeal was taken on Board and the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer sought time to move application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased claimant-Shri Surinder. 6. In terms of the mandate of law, in fact, the appeal had abated, however, learned counsel for the appellant moved CMP (M) No. 1896 of 2012 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased claimant-Shri Surinder alongwith CMP (M) No. 1897 of 2012 for condonation of delay, which had crept-in in filing the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased claimant-Shri Surinder. Both the applications were granted on 3rd December, 2012. Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 30th October, 2013, in terms of which, CMP No. 18502 of 2013 laid by the parents of the deceased claimant-Surinder was disposed of. After 30th October, 2013, the Registry has listed this appeal today in Court. Brief facts: 7. The claimant-injured, Shri Surinder, filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs, being the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Kapil Dev, while driving the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Pick Up, bearing registration No. HP-51A-9530, which was hired by the claimant-injured for carrying vegetables to Ganahatti, rashly and negligently, on 3rd January, 2006, at 11.30 A.M., at place Mandi Kalan, near Rugra; the offending vehicle rolled down, the claimant-injured suffered injuries, was taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, remained admitted there till 4th February, 2006 and has suffered 100% disability. 8. The owner-insured, the driver and the appellant-insurer have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 9. The Tribunal, after perusing the pleadings and the documents placed on record, framed the following issues on 24th September, 2008: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HP-51A-9530 by the respondent No. 2? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR-1& 2 4. Whether the petitioner was unauthorized passenger in the truck in question? ...OPR-3 5. Whether the truck in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ...OPR-3 6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective licence to drive the truck in question? ...OPR-3 7. Relief.” 10. The parties have led evidence in support of their case. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,33,000/- under various heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. 11. The owner-insured, the driver and the claimant-injured have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far it relate to them. 12. 10,33,000/- under various heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. 11. The owner-insured, the driver and the claimant-injured have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far it relate to them. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award only to the extent whereby it has been saddled with liability on the ground that the claimant-Shri Surinder was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, thus, the owner has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy and the appellant-insurer was not to be saddled with liability. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons: 14. The claimant-injured in para 10 of the claim petition has specifically averred that he was travelling in the offending vehicle for carrying vegetables. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the claim petition herein: 10. Was the person in respect of whom compensation is claimed was travelling the vehicle involved in the accident? If so, give the names or places starting of journey and destination. Yes. The petitioner was travelling in the truck (Mohindra Pick-up), bearing No. HP-51A-9530, for loading vegetables to Ghanahatti. 15. The owner-insured of the offending vehicle has accepted the same in reply to para 10 of the claim petition, i.e. para 6 of the reply on merits. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the reply on merits filed by the owner-insured to the claim petition herein: “6. Contents of para-10 of the petition are admitted that the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle along with his goods i.e. vegetable. It is admitted that the petitioner hired the said vehicle for carrying the vegetable to the Ghanahatti and he was travelling in the said ill fated truck along with goods and he was sitting in the cabin along with the Driver.” 16. In terms of the insurance contract read with the provisions contained in Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”), the insurer has to indemnify the insured, thus derives liability in terms of the insurance contract, which was in between the owner-insured and the appellant-insurer. In terms of the insurance contract read with the provisions contained in Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”), the insurer has to indemnify the insured, thus derives liability in terms of the insurance contract, which was in between the owner-insured and the appellant-insurer. The owner-insured has specifically admitted in para 6 of the reply on merits that the claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle with the vegetables. In terms of the mandate of Section 169 of the MV Act, some provisions of the CPC are also applicable. The provisions contained in Order VI read with Order VIII of the CPC do provide that the appellant-insurer had to file response/rejoinder/replica to the reply filed by the owner-insured, which it has failed to do so. Thus, the stand taken by the owner- insured remained unrebutted, rather, admitted in terms of Order VIII Rule 4 of the CPC. 17. I have scanned the evidence, details of which have been given in the impugned award, so I deem it proper not to reproduce the same herein, and am of the considered view that the appellant-insurer, though has pleaded that the claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, but has not led any evidence in this context and has failed to prove the same, thus cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger. 18. Further, the appellant-insurer was supposed to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy in order to seek exoneration, which it has failed to do so. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with liability. 19. The other issues are not disputed and have attained finality. Accordingly, they are upheld. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer further argued that during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant-injured has died, thus, his legal representatives are not entitled to the awarded amount, particularly, the amount awarded under the head 'loss of future income'. 21. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable for the reason that the impugned award has been passed and the claimant-injured has been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,33,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. 21. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable for the reason that the impugned award has been passed and the claimant-injured has been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,33,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the same, has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimant-injured has earned award, which can be executed by his legal representatives and even right to sue survives for the reason that the award is subject matter of the appeal. Had the claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition, the question would have been otherwise and may be, the claim petition would have been abated for the limited purpose. 22. In terms of the award, the compensation has been awarded in terms of money, which is an estate and estate devolves upon the legal representatives. 23. The legal representatives in law represents the estate of the deceased person. The award is an estate in terms of the provisions of law and on the death, it devolves upon the legal representatives. Thus, the legal representatives have every right to reap the fruits of the litigation/award. 24. The definition of word “estate” is given in The New Oxford Dictionary of English at page 629, which reads as under: “estate: noun 1 an area or amount of land or property, in particular: an area of land and modern buildings developed for residential, industrial, or commercial purpose. an extensive area of land in the country, usually with a large house, owned by one person or organization. all the money and property owned by a particular person, especially at death: in his will, he divided his estate between his wife and daughter. a property where coffee, rubber, grapes, or other crops are cultivated. (in South Africa) a registered vineyard producing wines made exclusively from grapes grown within its boundaries. (Emphasis added)” 25. In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the word “estate” has been defined at page 547 as under: “Estate. The degree, quantity, nature, and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein. 2 Bl. Comm. 103. The condition or circumstance in which the owner stands with regard to his property. The degree, quantity, nature, and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein. 2 Bl. Comm. 103. The condition or circumstance in which the owner stands with regard to his property. Boyd v. Sibold, 7 Wash.2d 279, 109 P.2d 535, 539. In this sense, “estate” is commonly used in conveyances in connection with the words “right”, “title” and “interest”, and is, in a great degree, synonymous with all of them. When used in connection with probate proceedings, term encompasses totality of assets and liabilities of decedent, including all manner of property, real and personal, choate or inchoate, corporeal or incorporeal. In re Adams' Estate, 148 C.A.2d 319, 306 P.2d 623, 625.” 26. Order XXII Rule 11 of CPC provides that provisions of Order XXII CPC applies to appeal also. It is apt to reproduce Order XXII Rule 11 of CPC herein: “ORDER XXII DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OF PARTIES …................................ 11. Application of Order to appeals. - In the application of this Order to appeals, so far as may be, the word "plaintiff” shall be held to include an appellant, the word "defendant" a respondent, and the word "suit" an appeal.” 27. Section 141 of CPC also mandates that the provisions of CPC applies to all miscellaneous proceedings. Having glance of these discussions, it can be safely said and held that after earning the award, the legal representatives are entitled to the said amount being estate of the deceased. 28. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan versus Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported in 1986 ACJ 440. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: “9. The position, therefore, is that had the appellant died during the pendency of his suit, the suit would have abated. Had he died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him in the district court, the appeal would have equally abated because his suit had been dismissed by the trial court. Had he, however, died during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the respondent in the High Court, the appeal would not have abated because he had succeeded in the first appeal and his suit had been decreed. Had he, however, died during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the respondent in the High Court, the appeal would not have abated because he had succeeded in the first appeal and his suit had been decreed. As, however, the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit, the present appeal by special leave must abate because what the appellant was seeking in this appeal was to enforce his right to sue for damages for defamation. This right did not survive his death and accordingly the appeal abated automatically on his death and his legal representatives acquired no right in law to be brought on the record in his place and stead. (Emphasis added)” 29. In another case titled as Ghisalal deceased through L.Rs. Versus Nihalsingh and others, reported in 1992 ACJ 181 , compensation was awarded in the claim petition. The claimant, feeling dissatisfied, filed appeal for enhancement and during the pendency of appeal, the claimant died and the question arose as to whether the entire claim petition had to abate or otherwise. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, while applying the principle laid down in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan' case (supra), held that the award of compensation made in favour of the injured-claimant before his death forms a part of his estate and thus, the legal representatives have every right to claim the same. However, the appeal abated so far it relates to enhancement of compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 26 and 27 of the judgment herein: “26. The award of compensation made in favour of the claimant-injured before his death had apparently formed a part of his estate. Upon the instant appeal having been filed by the claimant-injured the two points which required determination by this court were, firstly, the amount of enhancement for a just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant, and secondly, the liability of the respondent insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. As regards enhancement of compensation in respect of the inures it can be said that the cause of action to sue for enhancement of compensation in respect of personal injury sustained by the claimant did not survive on the death of the claimant injured during the pendency of the appeal. As regards enhancement of compensation in respect of the inures it can be said that the cause of action to sue for enhancement of compensation in respect of personal injury sustained by the claimant did not survive on the death of the claimant injured during the pendency of the appeal. But as regards the liability to pay compensation which had been determined in an award made by the learned Tribunal and as such had become an estate realisable from the respondents, the right to prosecute the appeal did survive for obtaining a just determination of the share of liability among the respondents inter se. 27. It is thus, clear that it may not be permissible for the legal representatives of the deceased claimant who died during the pendency of the appeal, to prosecute the appeal for enhancement of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the deceased claimant against the respondents, as is the case here, but the legal representatives of the deceased claimant are certainly entitled to the award of compensation already made by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant before his death and to prosecute this appeal for fixing the liability of payment among the respondents inter se. Since in the instant case, it has not been proved that the owner Kailashchandra had transferred the vehicle before the date of accident which took place during the cover of the policy, it must be held that the respondent insurance company is jointly and severally liable along with the owner and the driver to pay the amount of compensation awarded.” 30. This Court has also taken the same view in a bunch of two appeals, FAO No. 320 of 2009 being the lead case, titled as The New India Assurance Company versus Shri Anit Shankta (since deceased) through LRs, decided on 6th June, 2014. 31. It is also profitable and worthwhile to take note of the date of the award and the date of the death of the claimant-injured. The award was made on 7th November, 2009 and the claimant-injured died on 2nd August, 2012. 31. It is also profitable and worthwhile to take note of the date of the award and the date of the death of the claimant-injured. The award was made on 7th November, 2009 and the claimant-injured died on 2nd August, 2012. It is safely held while making guess work, the injured would have spent a huge amount for his treatment during the said period, while keeping in view the findings returned in the award read with the contents of the application moved by the learned counsel for the claimant-injured in terms of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC. 32. In the given circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is rejected. 33. Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 34. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the legal heirs/representatives of deceased claimant-injured in equal shares. 35. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.