Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.—The Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“the insurer”] is in appeal against the award dated 29.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in claim No.02/2010 entitled Anil Kumar v. Sanjay Kumar and others, whereby the injured-Anil Kumar, now deceased, has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,94,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum for the permanent disablement suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. 2. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the insurer to assail the impugned award, a brief reference to the factual matrix would be advantageous. 3. The claimant-Anil Kumar (now deceased) suffered a motor vehicle accident on 13th May, 2006, when the motor cycle he was riding had a head on collision with Matador bearing Regd. No.JK02G-2147 (offending vehicle). The aforesaid Anil Kumar suffered grievous injuries and as per the doctor attending him, he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 75%. The claimant-Anil Kumar filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.37,00,000/-for the injuries and 75% disablement suffered by him. The claim petition, as is apparent from the impugned award, was contested only by the insurer. The owner and driver despite service did not appear and chose not to contest the claim petition. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the contesting parties, framed following issues:- “I. Whether an accident took place on 13-05-2006 at Tubewell near Gurha by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.JK02G-2147 by its driver Respondent No.1, as a result of which Petitioner Anil Kumar received grievous injuries? OPP II. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP III. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and whether there has been violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so to what effect? OPR-3 IV. Whether the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of petitioner? If so to what effect? OPR-3 V. Relief? O.P. Parties” 4. The injured-claimant, who had filed the claim petition through his mother, got the statement of his mother-Santosh Kumari and three witnesses, namely, Haqiqat Raj, Subash Chander and Dr. Rakesh Gupta, recorded before the Tribunal. OPR-3 IV. Whether the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of petitioner? If so to what effect? OPR-3 V. Relief? O.P. Parties” 4. The injured-claimant, who had filed the claim petition through his mother, got the statement of his mother-Santosh Kumari and three witnesses, namely, Haqiqat Raj, Subash Chander and Dr. Rakesh Gupta, recorded before the Tribunal. The insurer examined one Roshan Lal, the owner of the offending vehicle as its sole witness. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led, determined all the issues and held issue Nos. I and II proved in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. The issue Nos.III and IV, onus whereof was on the insurer, were, however, held not proved and were, accordingly, decided against the insurer. Having regard to the age of the injured and the nature of permanent disablement suffered by him, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,94,000/- along with interest in favour of the claimant. 6. The insurer is aggrieved and has challenged the impugned award primarily on two issues:- i) The impugned award is exorbitant and does not represent just and fair compensation, in that, the Tribunal has determined the loss of earning capacity of the claimant as 100%, though he had suffered permanent disablement only to the extent of 75%. ii) The Tribunal failed to enforce the attendance of the witnesses of the insurer through coercive means and, thus, decided issue Nos. III and IV against the insurer. 7. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that the insurer had deposited the requisite witnesses expenses for seeking assistance of the Tribunal to summon the witnesses, who were none other than the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, but the Tribunal failed to perform its duty and enforce the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses. It is submitted that pursuant to the summons issued by the Tribunal, the witnesses, namely, Roshan Lal, the owner and Sanjay Kumar, the driver, caused their appearance and part statement of Roshan Lal was also recorded and they were directed to attend the Court on the next date along with requisite documents. The witnesses, however, failed to appear. The Tribunal instead of taking coercive measures closed the evidence of the insurer on 20.03.2014. The witnesses, however, failed to appear. The Tribunal instead of taking coercive measures closed the evidence of the insurer on 20.03.2014. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal did not provide the insurer adequate opportunity to discharge the burden of proof placed on it with regard to issue Nos.III and IV. It is argued by Mr. Malhotra that even the amount of compensation worked out and paid by the Tribunal to the claimant is exorbitant and excessive. It is submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the injured has died and, therefore, the loss of future income, as worked out by the Tribunal, cannot be now granted to his legal heirs. The argument of Mr. Malhotra is that the death of the injured during pendency of the appeal, which is continuation of the trial, has changed the position and the compensation payable to the legal heirs of the injured needs to be re-worked and reassessed. 8. Mr. J.P.Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the injured, however, submits that the award of the Tribunal is just and fair and does not call for any interference. He submits that as per the statement of the Doctor, the nature of disablement suffered by the injured was head injury with hemiplegia of right side and as a result the injured was totally incapacitated to earn his livelihood and was made to depend on others. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that given the nature of injuries/permanent disablement suffered by the injured, grant of compensation of Rs.11,94,000/- cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be excessive or exorbitant. It is true that the total permanent disablement suffered by the injured, as certified by Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, is to the extent of 75% but the doctor has clearly opined that given the nature of disablement suffered, the injured has been incapacitated to perform any type of work and will have to depend for his livelihood on others. In that view of the matter, I find nothing wrong with the view of the Tribunal that the petitioner, because of his disablement, has suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%. 10. So far as other plea of Mr. Malhotra that the Tribunal did not grant the insurer adequate opportunity to discharge the burden of proof of issue Nos. 10. So far as other plea of Mr. Malhotra that the Tribunal did not grant the insurer adequate opportunity to discharge the burden of proof of issue Nos. III and IV is concerned, I find no substance in it for the reason that the police challan placed on record clearly reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle has been charged for the commission of offence under Section 279/337 RPC and has not been charged for not possessing driving license. This has been taken note of by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The challan which has been placed on record with regard to the occurrence is not disputed by the insurer and if that be the position, even if the insurer is provided opportunity to record the statement of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the factual position is not likely to be changed. From the perusal of the objections filed by the insurer before the Tribunal, it is abundantly clear that the insurer has not disputed the possession of driving license by the driver of the offending vehicle but its objection is that he was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. Even it is not suggested or asserted as to how the driving license possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid and effective authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle. 11. In the face of vague pleading of the insurer, coupled with the police report submitted with regard to the accident in question, I do not find it a fit case for remand to the Tribunal for re-determination of issue Nos. III and IV after providing opportunity to the insurer. 12. I am also not impressed by the argument of Mr. Malhotra that death of the injured during pendency of the appeal would necessitate re-assessment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to say that the claim petition was filed by the injured himself and he was alive when the same culminated into passing of the impugned award by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded to the injured, after his death, would constitute his estate heritable by his legal representatives. This Court has already considered this aspect in MA No.07/2018 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rinkoo Devi and others) decided on 28.08.2020 and held in para 12 of the judgment as under:- “12. The amount of compensation awarded to the injured, after his death, would constitute his estate heritable by his legal representatives. This Court has already considered this aspect in MA No.07/2018 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rinkoo Devi and others) decided on 28.08.2020 and held in para 12 of the judgment as under:- “12. It is true that an action for personal injuries dies with the death of the injured. It is based on a common rule actio personalis moritur cum persona. The cause of action for personal injuries being founded on tort, the injured person’s claim for damages based on such tort cannot, on the death of such person, survive for prosecution by his legal representatives. It is, thus, trite law that a claim by a person for compensation for personal injuries, pending before the claim Tribunal, does not survive, on such person’s death not caused as a consequence of personal injuries, to his legal representatives except and insofar as it pertains to loss to the estate of the deceased. The position, however, would be different, if the claim of such person for compensation has resulted in award by the Tribunal before his death and in that eventuality, the award or decree of the Claims Tribunal would be the estate of the deceased inheritable by his legal representatives on his death. In such a situation and eventuality, the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to seek execution of the award or contest the appeal before the appellate forum.” 13. In view of the foregoing, I find no merit in this appeal, hence the same is dismissed along with connected application.