JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2011 passed in MVC No.906/2010 filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal is that on 11.03.2009 at about 2.45 PM deceased Dundappa was going on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/J-6799 along with Shekhar Allappagouda Baadar as a pillion rider, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle slowly and cautiously and when they came about 200 meters from the Nandi Sugar Factory another motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/J-7257 came from opposite direction i.e. from Kanabur side in very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to this impact, both have sustained injuries and both were shifted in BLDE Hospital Bijapur and thereafter he was shifted to Dhanwantari Hospital Bijapur. In spite of taking treatment, the claimant suffered permanent disability which has affected his earning capacity. Hence, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking for compensation in view of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and also denied the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment taken by the injured sustained. It is contended that the driver of the motor bike in question was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident as such the said respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 4. The tribunal on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues: (1) Does petitioners prove that accident is due to rash and negligence driving of the motorbike bearing No.KA-29/K-7257 by its rider and in this accident Dundappa Channal died and petitioner Shekhar of MVC-906/2010 sustained injuries? (2) Does respondent-2 prove that the rider of the motorbike KA-29/K-7257 had no driving licence to drive the motorbike and there is violation of policy terms and conditions of the policy and also the provisions of M.V.Act? (3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and against whom? (4) What order? 5. (2) Does respondent-2 prove that the rider of the motorbike KA-29/K-7257 had no driving licence to drive the motorbike and there is violation of policy terms and conditions of the policy and also the provisions of M.V.Act? (3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and against whom? (4) What order? 5. The claimant examined as PW2 in order to prove the disability and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Respondent No.2 examined its Administrative Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and after considering the material on record, recorded the finding that the claimant has proved the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-29/K-7257 by its rider and the claimant has sustained injuries in the said accident and also held that the respondent No.2 has proved the rider of the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-29/K-7257 had no driving licence to drive the motor bike and there is violation of policy conditions and provision of the M.V.Act and also held that the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation and allowed the claim petition against respondent No.1 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% on the said amount from the date of petition till realization. 7. The claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal. This Court vide order dated 30.08.2012 issued notice to the respondents and the postal envelop cover, notice issued to the respondent No.1 but returned with postal shara “IMAGE" in respect of R1”. Thereafter the petitioner has filed an application bringing LRs of deceased respondent No.1. This Court allowed the application vide order dated 08.06.2021 permitted the claimant to bring the LRs of deceased respondent No.1. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also learned counsel appearing for the LRs of deceased respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the respondent No.1 died much prior to the date of accident. The claimant came to know about the death of respondent No.1 only on the notice being returned with a endorsement. The claimant without knowing the death of the claimant as arrayed the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the respondent No.1 died much prior to the date of accident. The claimant came to know about the death of respondent No.1 only on the notice being returned with a endorsement. The claimant without knowing the death of the claimant as arrayed the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. He further submits that the claim petition was filed against the dead person and the tribunal has allowed the claim petition against the dead person. He further submits that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal against the dead person is nullity in the eye of law. Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 concedes the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimant. 11. Heard and perused the records. 12. The point that arise for consideration: Whether the judgment and award passed by the tribunal against the dead person is nullity in the eye of law? 13. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 died in the year 2006 much prior to the date of accident. The petitioner has filed a claim petition arraying the deceased Shivarudrappa as respondent No.1 before the tribunal. The reports discloses that the notice issued to the deceased was returned unserved and thereafter he was placed ex-parte. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the claim petition against the dead person. As on the date of passing the award against respondent No.1 was no more. The impugned judgment and award passed as against the dead person is nullity in the eye of law. In the judgment reported in Amba Bai v. Gopal ( (2001) 5 SCC 570 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “As the judgment in the second appeal was passed without the knowledge that the appellant had dies, the same being a judgment passed against a dead person is a nullity”. In the case of Noai Chowkidar v. Official Trustee of Bengal, reported in (AIR 1929 Calcutta 527), held that "There is no doubt that an order passed against a dead person would be a nullity”. Admittedly in the present case, the judgment and award passed against the respondent No.1 is nullity in the eye of law. During the pendency of this appeal, the legal representatives of respondent No.1 are brought on record. Admittedly in the present case, the judgment and award passed against the respondent No.1 is nullity in the eye of law. During the pendency of this appeal, the legal representatives of respondent No.1 are brought on record. In view of the same and in view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award is set aside. The claim petition is restored to the file of tribunal to its original number with a liberty to the petitioner to take out formal application for bringing legal representative of deceased respondent No.1 as may be permissible in law, which ought to be decided by the tribunal and thereafter provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and pass judgment and award in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from 12.07.2021. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 12.07.2021 without waiting notice. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.