JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The appellants herein are aggrieved, by the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MAC Case No.106-S/2 of 2013. 2. The victim/injured one Ajit Awasthi, expired, during the pendency of the apposite claim petition, and, on his demise, his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record. The order recorded by the learned Tribunal on 18.12.2014, whereupon, the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Aswasthi, were, enjoined to be brought on record, especially for want of its being assailed, by the respondents, hence, has acquired conclusivity. 3. The relevant accident occurred, on 12.12.2012, whereas, the demise of victim Ajit Awasthi, occurred subsequent thereto. However, there is no evidence on record, of, the demise of victim Ajit Awasthi being a sequel of his sustaining injuries, in the motor vehicle accident concerned. 4. Be that as it may, the learned tribunal, had under the head(s) of medical expenses incurred, during the hospitalization of the victim, and, for rendition of service vis-a-vis him, by his successors-in-interest, importantly during the period of the hospitalization of the victim, determined lump sum compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. (i) However, the learned Tribunal for want of cogent proof, being adduced vis-a-vis, 32% permanent disability being entailed upon the injured/victim, in sequel to the injuries suffered by him, in the relevant accident, hence, refrained to determine any compensation, qua permanent loss of enjoyment of life, hence, befalling upon victim Ajit Awasthi, (ii) also, declined determination of compensation under the aforesaid head vis-a-vis victim Ajit Awasthi, (iii) reiteratedly for no evidence existing on file, of, in sequel to the disability befalling upon him, in consequence of injuries suffered by him, in the motor vehicle accident either his promotional avenues being diminished or his suffering the ill fate of demotion in service. The aforesaid reasons afforded by the learned Tribunal, from its abstaining to determine compensation vis-a-vis the legal heirs of deceased victim Ajit Awasthi, under the head of loss of enjoyment of life or for perennial trauma being entailed upon him, does withstand an incisive scrutiny of the evidence germane thereto. 5. The aforesaid reasons afforded by the learned Tribunal, from its abstaining to determine compensation vis-a-vis the legal heirs of deceased victim Ajit Awasthi, under the head of loss of enjoyment of life or for perennial trauma being entailed upon him, does withstand an incisive scrutiny of the evidence germane thereto. 5. Be that as it may, the substantial question of law, enjoining determination(s) is whether given lack of efficacious evidence existing on record, for erecting a firm conclusion qua the demise of victim one Ajit Awasthi, being a sequel to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident concerned, (i) thereupon, whether it was befitting, for the learned tribunal concerned, to, on his demise, hence, order for his being substituted, by his successors-in-interest, (ii) besides whether hence the innate nuance, of, the maxim actio pesonalis moritur cum persona is squarely attracted heart, with a further sequel, of victim of the tort hence being solitarily entitled, to stake claim for determination of compensation, under, various head(s) and of his legal heirs or dependents, rather being disentitled to seek determination, of compensation under various heads. The aforesaid conundrum, is answered, by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench a Dharwad, in case titled as Sri Gangappa vs. Sri Mohan, decided on 28th November, 2012 bearing Misc. First Appeal No. 22719 of 2010 (MV) by relying upon a Full Bench, wherein the Full Bench arrived at the following conclusion encapsulated, at paragaph No.12 of the Full Bench's judgment:- “12. In the result, the Full Bench answers the question referred for its decision by the Division Bench, thus: (I) a claim petition presented under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for peronal injuries, as also, for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc. In the result, the Full Bench answers the question referred for its decision by the Division Bench, thus: (I) a claim petition presented under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for peronal injuries, as also, for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc. (loss of estate) cannot, on such person's death occurring not as a result of consequence of bodily injuries sustained from a motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives, but (ii) a claim petition presented under Section 110A 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 of estate) can, on such person's death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident, be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives only in so far as the claim for compensation in that claim petition relates to loss of estate of the deceased person due to bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident.” It has been firmly pronounced therein (i) that where the demise, of the deceased is not proven to be ascribable, to injuries suffered by him, in a motor vehicle accident, (ii) thereupon, the principle of maxim actio pesonalis moritur cum persona, being attracted, and, where in his personal capacity, he institutes a claim petition for staking determination of compensation vis-a-vis him, under various heads, (iii) yet upon occurrence of his demise, during the pendency of the claim petition, rather dis-empowering the learned tribunal concerned, to order for his substitution, by his legal heirs. The aforesaid mandate, is squarely attracted hereat, given, forceful evidence existing on record, of the demise of Ajit Awasthi, standing not proven, to be a sequel of injuries sustained, by him in the relevant accident. Furthermore, the order for his substitution by his legal heirs, given, his demise occurring during the pendency of claim petition, is, contrary to the mandate supra. 6. Furthermore, the order for his substitution by his legal heirs, given, his demise occurring during the pendency of claim petition, is, contrary to the mandate supra. 6. Be that as it may, when, for the aforesaid reason, the order recorded by the learned tribunal concerned for substitution of the deceased victim, by his legal heirs, hence, acquire conclusivity nor with the respondents instituting cross-objections, or any cross-appeal, for assailing the validity, of, the assessment of compensation vis-a-vis the dependents of the deceased victim, thereupon, alone this Court, deems it not fit to interfere with the impugned award, dehors, for the aforesaid reasons, the order rendered by the MACT concerned, for substitution of the deceased victim, by his legal heirs besides determination of compensation vis-a-vis them being hence both infirm and invalid. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.