JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that on 3.11.2003, deceased Chandra Prakash, a police personnel, while going to his official duty, was dashed by Bus No.UP26/8265 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. He was severely injured, inasmuch as, he suffered deformity in his one foot and one hand. As a result thereof, he became 65 percent disabled and led a miserable life after the accident, with the result, his future career promotions were also struck. After remaining hospitalized for several months, somehow he could join his duty but ultimately, he breathed his last on 31.3.2005. 2. Although, the petition was initially filed by the injured Chandra Prakash but since he died during the course of trial, hence was substituted by his legal heirs/dependants including the wife and four minor children. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in the case of ‘Smt. Bhagwati Bai and another v. Bablu & others’ AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 38, when, in a similar matter, it was held that where the application for compensation for personally injury u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is moved but the claimant/injured dies subsequently for some other reasons, then the claim for such injury would abate on the death of the claimant; further, the claim will not survive to his legal heirs except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the claimant. 4. I have gone through that judgment and find that though, the facts may be little similar but are not identical in nature with the instant controversy. So, this precedent is not applicable here. In the case, so relied upon, the claimant suffered fracture in the knee of the right foot and wrist of the left hand; he remained hospitalized and died during the pendency of claim petition but such injuries were not the cause of his death; so, in that eventuality, the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that subsequently, when the claimant died for some other reasons, then the claim petition stands abated and cannot be survived to his legal representatives except as regards the claim for pecuniary loss of estate. 5. 5. It has been contended by the appellant that subsequent to lying hospitalized, injured Chandra Prakash joined his duty and after some time of joining, he died, so the factum of accident cannot be stretched to be a cause of his death. I am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that the accident made the deceased to suffer 65 percent deformity or made him handicapped to that extent on account of the accident, in question, but he was constrained to join his official duties in order to bring up his minor children and family. He was suffering with anemia and ultimately, suffered a paralytic attack on account of being anemic as well as other bodily infirmities which had developed due to the accident, in question. So, it is difficult to accept that the deceased died only for some other reason and this motor accident did not at all have any impact on his breathing last. 6. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that on account of the accident, in question, the injured was subjected to serious injuries, inasmuch as, he became anemic leading to development of Tuberculosis of the highest degree and at last, he lost the life. So, merely the fact, that he had joined back his official duties, cannot be a conclusive factor leading to an inference that he had become physically fit to discharge his official duties. The experience reminds that in every service, whether government or private sector, there are several jobs and such type of injured persons are assigned for a less hectic work. Every employer, more particularly, the government being an ideal master does not terminate the service of its servants in such circumstances. 7. That apart, if Mr. Chandra Prakash had died during the course of pendency of petition, then his legal representatives/dependants were rightly substituted in his place and I do not find any infirmity in such substitution. Rather, it saves the multiplicity of the litigation. 8. Other contention put forth on behalf of the insurance company is that the part of responsibility should have been fastened upon the insurer of motorcycle since it was a case of head on collision. I do not agree with this contention as well, since nothing substantial is indicated in the entire evidence verifying this fact. 9. 8. Other contention put forth on behalf of the insurance company is that the part of responsibility should have been fastened upon the insurer of motorcycle since it was a case of head on collision. I do not agree with this contention as well, since nothing substantial is indicated in the entire evidence verifying this fact. 9. In view of the above, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 10. Vide order dated 4.3.2011, fifty percent of the decretal amount has been directed to be released in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal is directed to release the remaining money in favour of the claimants. 11. The money lying deposited in the registry of this Court, as statutory deposit, be also remitted to the concerned Tribunal for being paid to the claimants. 12. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.