JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 12.05.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in Claim Case No.17 of 2005 whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal in an application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,120/- to the claimants and directed the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company to pay the said compensation amount but as owner of the vehicle could not reproduce valid and effective driving licence of the offending vehicle such as fitness certificate, driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and permit, hence, the learned Tribunal gave the right to recover the compensation amount to the opposite party - respondent no.3- insurance company from the owner of the vehicle. 3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants only for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 4. It is undisputed fact that the respondent no.1-Ranjeet Ram who was the owner of the vehicle has died on 18.06.2009 but no prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of him has been made in this appeal and consequently, vide order dated 09.04.2014, this appeal has stood abated against the respondent no.1- owner of the vehicle. 5. Mr. 4. It is undisputed fact that the respondent no.1-Ranjeet Ram who was the owner of the vehicle has died on 18.06.2009 but no prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of him has been made in this appeal and consequently, vide order dated 09.04.2014, this appeal has stood abated against the respondent no.1- owner of the vehicle. 5. Mr. Amresh Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent no.3- opposite party no.3- insurance company raised the preliminary objection at the time of hearing of this appeal by submitting that since the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company has been absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants because of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the vehicle; as the vehicle in question was driven in absence of any permit and by a driver who was not holding the valid and effective licence on the date of accident as also without a fitness certificate and only keeping the welfare nature of the legislation, the Tribunal has directed the opposite party no.3- respondent no.3- insurance company to pay the compensation amount but with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and as the appeal has abated against the owner of the vehicle and in case of enhancement of the quantum of compensation by this court as prayed for by the appellants in this appeal, the same will not be binding upon the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. It is next submitted that in this appeal, the appellant has not challenged the portion of the judgment and award by which the learned tribunal absolved the respondent no.3 from paying the compensation amount and saddled the liability of payment of the compensation on the owner of the vehicle who is the respondent no.1 of this appeal. Hence, it is submitted that in the facts of the case, the abatement of the appeal against respondent no.1 amounts that this appeal abates as a whole and the right to sue for the appellants does not survive against the respondent no.3, insurance company. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal be dismissed having abated as a whole. 6. Mr. Hence, it is submitted that in the facts of the case, the abatement of the appeal against respondent no.1 amounts that this appeal abates as a whole and the right to sue for the appellants does not survive against the respondent no.3, insurance company. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal be dismissed having abated as a whole. 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to Section 155 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which reads as under :- “155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.— Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of such event against his estate or against the insurer.” And submits that section 155 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 entitles the claimants-appellants to maintain the claim application even after the death of the owner of the vehicle and consequently, the appeal against the insurance company even if the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the vehicle have not been brought on record consequent upon the death of the owner of the vehicle and which resulted in the appeal abating against the owner of the vehicle being the respondent no.1, may be continued against the estate of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3- opposite party no.3- insurance company and the preliminary objection be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3- opposite party no.3- insurance company and the preliminary objection be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal:- “Whether in in view of the fact that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal has absolved the insurance company of the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and thus has given the right to recover the compensation amount awarded, after paying the said amount of compensation the claimants, from the owner of the vehicle, the appeal will abate as a whole consequent of the appeal having been abated against the owner of the vehicle being the respondent no.1, because of non-substitution of his legal representatives?” 8. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 155 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is an exception to the general principle in the law of tort that tort does not survive upon the demise of the tortfeasor. Section 155 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 essentially provides that the death of the person in whose favour certificate of insurance is issued, if the death occurs after the happening of the event which has given rise to claim of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, it shall not bar the survival of the cause of action arising out of the accident against the insurer or the estate of the insured but it must be kept in mind that there cannot be a decree against an estate. An estate cannot face a litigation for satisfying any decree unless it is held by some owner or his legal representatives in his absence. Thus, survival of cause of action contemplated by Section 155 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can only be against the legal representatives of the deceased owner and not against his estate as such. Consequently, the victim of accident arising out of the use of vehicle of the deceased on the death of the owner of the vehicle during the pendency of action can continue the action by bringing the legal representatives of the deceased owner on record. 9. Consequently, the victim of accident arising out of the use of vehicle of the deceased on the death of the owner of the vehicle during the pendency of action can continue the action by bringing the legal representatives of the deceased owner on record. 9. Of course, if the insurance policy is valid and under the insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount then omission to bring the legal representatives of the offending vehicle on record may not be a ground for dismissal of the claim application but here the case is different. Here undisputedly, the learned Tribunal has absolved the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation and saddled the liability upon the owner of the vehicle. Though it has not been expressed by the learned Tribunal in so many words but the reason for giving the right to recover the compensation amount to be paid by the insurance company from the owner of vehicle; is that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in the following manner: i) by allowing his vehicle to be driven by a driver who was not having a valid and effective driving licence, ii) the vehicle in question was not having a fitness certificate showing that the vehicle was fit for being plied on a public road; and iii) the vehicle was driven without any permit. This finding of the learned Tribunal of absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation is not under challenge in this appeal. 10. This Court is of the considered view that no valid and effective order can be passed against the estate of the deceased owner of the vehicle being the respondent no.1 of this appeal; in the absence of his legal representatives being brought on record. Hence, this Court under such circumstances has no hesitation in holding that because of the failure of the appellant-claimants to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1- owner of the vehicle, even after the death of the respondent no.1 and consequently as this appeal abated against the respondent no.1, this appeal abates as a whole. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal abates as a whole. 12. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal abates as a whole. 12. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.