ORDER : 1. M.A.C.M.A.No.3023 of 2018 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the correctness of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012. 2. C.R.P.No.5383 of 2018 is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. questioning the correctness of order dated 12.07.2018 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.333 of 2018 in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012. Since both the matters are interrelated, they are heard together and are now disposed of by this common order. 3. Sri S.Chandrasekar was a Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. He was travelling in a car being driven by a driver and on 06.02.2012 at about 3:30 P.M. an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-03-K-2085 came in the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road and dashed the car of the judicial officer in which the judicial officer suffered various injuries all over the body and also suffered fractures to his left knee and left shoulder. The injured judicial officer filed M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation as against respondent No.1, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2, the insurance company. The matter was pending before the Tribunal at Chittoor and the evidence on behalf of both parties was completed and arguments on behalf of the claimant were heard and for the insurance company also arguments were submitted and while the matter was coming up for hearing arguments on behalf of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, it was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal that the claimant-judicial officer Sri S.Chandrasekar died on 02.04.2018. Thus, at the verge of completion of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the injured claimant died. His wife and a daughter (minor) filed I.A.No.333 of 2018 under Order XXII Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. praying the learned Tribunal to grant permission to them to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased claimant. The owner and driver did not choose to appear and protest as against that prayer. The insurance company filed its counter. After enquiring into that application, the learned Tribunal by assigning its own reasons dismissed the said application. The owner and driver did not choose to appear and protest as against that prayer. The insurance company filed its counter. After enquiring into that application, the learned Tribunal by assigning its own reasons dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by it, C.R.P.No.5383 of 2018 is filed before this Court by the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Tribunal having dismissed I.A.No.333 of 2018 holding that the case abated, it dismissed M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 as abated. Questioning that order, M.A.C.M.A.No.3023 of 2018 is filed by the legal representatives. The grounds urged in the revision as well as the appeal are common. 4. In the present proceedings in spite of service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company made appearance. 5. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal and revision, this Court is to notice as to what transpired before the learned Tribunal. The fact that the injured claimant Sri S.Chandrasekar died on 02.04.2018 and the fact that he was survived by his wife and minor daughter and that they are his legal representatives are not disputed both before the learned Tribunal as well as in this Court. As could be seen from the material papers and the impugned orders, the cause of death of the original claimant was not really brought on record by both parties. However, from the impugned orders, one could see that during the course of hearing the application for impleadment of legal representatives, the learned Tribunal was informed by the learned counsel for insurance company that the original claimant died because of cancer. Acting upon that, an observation was recorded that the death of claimant was not out of injuries he sustained in the accident, but it was a natural death. During the hearing of the present matters, no contentions are raised on both sides about this aspect of the matter. 6. The only ground on which learned Tribunal chose to dismiss the application and the petition is that the cause of action did not survive death of the injured claimant and therefore, legal representatives could not be brought on record and the claim for compensation is abated. Those conclusions were reached based on Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as reiterated by Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Uttam Kumar (deceased) v. Madhav and another, (2006) ACC 378. 7. Those conclusions were reached based on Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as reiterated by Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Uttam Kumar (deceased) v. Madhav and another, (2006) ACC 378. 7. Challenging that, the revision and appeal are filed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for legal representatives submits that the impugned orders are in violation of the law and the cause of action survives the death of the injured claimant and the legal representatives are entitled to prosecute the case for the estate of the deceased and the subsisting precedent and weight of law is against the principles followed by the learned Tribunal. 9. As against it, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the impugned orders are supported by statutory reasons and no interference is required. 10. Having heard the submissions on both sides and considering the material on record, the point that falls for consideration is : “Whether the claim for compensation for injuries sustained by the claimant survives his natural death or not?” 11. Point : A perusal of the claim petition filed by the deceased would show that he made a claim for compensation under various heads, which include expenses for his medical treatment, transportation charges, loss of leave salary, charges for attendant, charges for room rents, damage to the clothing and other articles. He also sought for claims towards his pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of future prospects etc. Thus, under distinct heads, he sought for special damages as well as general damages. As he died, his wife and daughter intended to come on record under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. The said provision indicates that if a sole surviving plaintiff died and if the right to sue survives, the legal representatives could get impleaded and proceed with the legal proceedings. The claim was filed by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This provision provides for claims by injured and claims on behalf of the deceased. This provision employs the words ‘legal representatives’. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has not defined legal representatives. Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 speaks about legal representatives stating that the meaning that is assigned in Section 2(11) C.P.C. shall be followed. Section 2(11) C.P.C. defined legal representative stating that it is a person, who in law represents the estate of the deceased person. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has not defined legal representatives. Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 speaks about legal representatives stating that the meaning that is assigned in Section 2(11) C.P.C. shall be followed. Section 2(11) C.P.C. defined legal representative stating that it is a person, who in law represents the estate of the deceased person. Thus, if there is estate for the deceased, his legal representatives could pursue the litigation as representatives of that estate of the deceased. This much is clear from the procedural provisions. Now, the question is, in a claim for compensation for personal injuries, whether any estate is involved or not? If no estate is involved, then right to sue does not survive and question of legal representatives pursuing the litigation does not arise. If there exists estate in the eye of law in such a compensation claim, then one shall hold that right to sue survives and legal representatives shall be permitted to prosecute the case. In similar circumstances, this Court had the occasion to decide this issue. In United Insurance Company Ltd. v. E.Laxma Reddy (died) per LRs., [MANU/AP/0159/2006], this Court has stated that the liability of the owner of the vehicle and the insurer to pay compensation for the injuries of a claimant does not come to an end in a case where the claimant dies before the claim is settled. The liability subsists and the legal representatives of the claimant would step into the shoes of the claimant. The entitlement of the legal representatives would be confined to the amount which the deceased claimant could have recovered had he been alive. As that is to be treated as the ‘estate’ of the deceased. 12. A similar question arose during the pendency of an appeal. Reiterating this principle, this Court in S.Vykuntam v. G.Narayana, [MANU/AP/0876/2006] stated that the claim for loss of estate is available and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal. This Court also stated that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee etc. This Court also recorded the entire body of the precedent of various High Courts holding similar view. The impugned orders would show that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider these propositions of law of this High Court. This Court also stated that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee etc. This Court also recorded the entire body of the precedent of various High Courts holding similar view. The impugned orders would show that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider these propositions of law of this High Court. It went on to think in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act as expounded in Uttam Kumar’s case in other jurisdictions. It failed to pay its attention about the estate of the deceased etc. Learned counsel for legal representatives cited the judgment in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon (Deceased) through his Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan, [MANU/SC/0531/2021/ AIR 2021 SC 3913 ], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at para No.16 stated that they could not approve the law laid down in Uttam Kumar’s case (1 supra). In the impugned order in I.A.No.333 of 2018 in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012, the learned trial Court held at para No.15 as follows: “15……in view of the law provided under Section 306 of Indian Succession Act and reiterated by Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in “Uttam Kumar (Deceased) vs. Madhav and another” 1 (2006) ACC 378, and since the claim of 1st petitioner is, for compensation towards the personal injuries he received in the accident and his death has not resulted as a consequence of said injuries, and on account of his death during pendency of claim petition, his right to sue the respondents for the injuries does not survive to petitioners 2 and 3 and to prosecute claim petition filed, and they are not entitled for impleadment in the proceedings, and the point is answered accordingly against the petitioners 2 and 3 and in favor of 2nd respondent.” Learned trial Court based its decision mainly relying on that judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India chose not to approve. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held at para No.18, while the claim for personal injuries normally does not survive the death of the injured, but the claim for loss of estate survives and that could be pursued by the legal representatives of the injured claimant. At para No.20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee etc. At para No.20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee etc. including income and future prospectus, which would have caused reasonable accretion of the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from, and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased. At para No.21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ being personal injuries cannot be sustained in such cases. At para No.11 quoting the precedent it seems to state that using the definition under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 it is unjust to non-suit the heirs of the deceased. 13. The above principles would amply demonstrate that on death of the injured in a motor vehicle claim pending before learned Tribunal, there is estate left behind by him and that estate has to be represented through his legal representatives. This Court has already narrated various heads under which the deceased claimant put forth his claim and this Court also recorded various heads which form part of the estate of the deceased. Since they are available on record, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered all these and ought to have held that cause of auction did survive and it ought to have permitted the legal representatives to come on to the record and pursue. The order of the learned trial Court is against law and therefore, cannot be supported. Before concluding this, it could be stated that all this controversy could be said to have been resolved by the legislature since Sub-Section (5) is incorporated in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The same is extracted here: “(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.” 14. This was brought into statute book by Section 53(v) of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 on 09.08.2019. This was brought into statute book by Section 53(v) of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 on 09.08.2019. That was brought into force from 01.04.2022 by a notification in SO 859(E) dated 25.02.2022, which is published in the Gazette of India; Extraordinary [(Part-II –SEC.3(ii)] of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Notification. By this provision, whenever the injured claimant dies either because of the injuries or because of other causes, the right for legal representatives to pursue the claim is granted. It is for all the above stated reasons, the impugned orders shall be set aside. Point is answered in favour of the appellants-cum-revision petitioners. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.333 of 2018 in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 and the said application stands allowed permitting the legal representatives to come on record. Consequently, the Appeal is also allowed setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 and M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2012 and the claim shall be restored permitting the legal representatives to pursue the litigation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.