JUDGMENT : (NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) 1. Present appeal at the instance of Insurance Co. is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.01.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in MACP No.672 of 2013. 1.1 The claimant before the Tribunal is the mother of the deceased Maheshbhai, aged about 18 years at the time of accident, which occurred on 17.02.2013, had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation amount of Rs.8 Lakhs under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal had partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition holding the respondent No.1 owner of the offending tractor and the respondent No.2 present appellant – Insurance Co. jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal had further directed to disburse 40% of the award amount to the claimant and remaining 60% of the award amount was directed to be deposited in the name of the claimant with a nationalized bank of her choice for a period of 6 years. The claimant was further held entitled to receive periodical interest on the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipt, however, was not entitled to raise loan or advance without prior permission of the Tribunal. 2. In brief, the case put forward in the claim petition as contended by the original claimant is that on 17.02.2013, the deceased Maheshbhai, who is also son of the respondent No.1, owner of the offending tractor, was traveling as laborer. The driver was driving the said tractor at full speed and in a rash and negligent manner. At about 10:45 a.m., when the tractor had reached near Steel Connect India Company, B/h. Suryadeep Hotel, Nr. Hathijan village, at that time, the driver lost his control over steering and the tractor proceeded on to the mound. Due to which the said tractor turned turtle. By aforesaid narration, the original claimant, who is otherwise not eye-witness to the accident, has contended that the deceased who was sitting on the tractor, had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to such injuries. It was further submitted that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs. By aforesaid narration, the original claimant, who is otherwise not eye-witness to the accident, has contended that the deceased who was sitting on the tractor, had sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to such injuries. It was further submitted that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs. 3500/- to Rs.4000/- by doing labor work and has, therefore, prayed for compensation of Rs.8 lakhs under different heads. 2.2 The claim petition was proceeded ex parte against the respondent No.1 pursuant to the order passed below Exhibit 12 by the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 Insurance Co. had appeared before the Tribunal and had contested the claim petition by filing a written statement vide Exhibit 19. Specific defense was raised before the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling unauthorisedly in the tractor of ownership of his father and therefore, he cannot be termed as “third party” and the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. The defense of the driver of not holding a valid and effective license at the time of accident, was also raised. It was further contended that the owner of the vehicle by handing over the possession of the vehicle to such driver in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder as well as had also committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. 2.3 The Tribunal had framed issues vide Exhibit 20. The same are reproduced as under: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased died because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle involved in the accident? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to get the compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom? 3. What order and award? 2.4 The Tribunal, while considering the issue of negligence, had taken into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties. The Tribunal took notice of the fact that the evidence of original claimant about negligence of the driver of the tractor was not nullified by leading any evidence inasmuch as no other eye-witness was examined. The driver of the tractor had also not stepped into the witness box. The Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the tractor had also not stepped into the witness box. The Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 2.5 The Tribunal, while examining the issue of computation of compensation has taken into consideration mainly the evidence of the original claimant and has held the original claimant entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. Particulars Amount Rs. Loss of Dependency 4,32,000.00 Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses 48,000.00 Total 4,8,000.00 2.6 So far the issue of liability to satisfy the aforesaid award amount is concerned, the Tribunal has straightway proceeded to hold the appellant – Insurance Co. jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant noticing the fact that period of insurance covered the date of accident. The appellant Insurance Co. is seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal in ignoring specific defense raised by the Insurance Co. as regards unauthorized passenger in tractor and risk of such 3. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval has appeared on behalf of appellant – Insurance Co. and has invited attention of this Court to the peculiar facts of the case about the deceased being the son of the owner of the offending vehicle tractor. He has submitted that the respondent No.2 was joined in the claim petition in his capacity as owner of the offending vehicle and he had expired pending the proceedings before the Tribunal on 17.12.2018. The reliance was placed upon a copy of the death certificate of the deceased respondent. By referring to the manner in which the accident was narrated in the claim petition and the aforesaid fact of death of respondent No.2 pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, the learned advocate has submitted that the judgment and award impugned is nullity in eye of law as being passed against the deceased person. He further submitted that once the award is to be treated as nullity, the direction of making payment of award amount by the Insurance Co. which are otherwise held jointly and severally liable, cannot be enforced. At this stage, the learned advocate has submitted that the award amount has already been deposited with the Tribunal, which is required to be refunded back to the Insurance Co. 4. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance upon following authorities: 1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. At this stage, the learned advocate has submitted that the award amount has already been deposited with the Tribunal, which is required to be refunded back to the Insurance Co. 4. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance upon following authorities: 1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmalaben Ghanshyambhai Sen (First Appeal No.4485 of 2018) 2. Narsinhbhai Manjibhai Chhabhaiya Vs. Kasam Ishabhai Kumbhar (First Appeal No.32469 of 2019) 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Nandiram & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal No.309 of 1984) (reported in 2001 ACT 567) 4. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansaben Khumansinh Padhiyar (First Appeal No.4469 of 2006 (reported in 2011 ACJ 854 ) 5. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sitaben Wd/o. Ratanbhai Devabhai Rabari (Civil Application NO.13526 of 2013 in First Appeal No.3446 of 2012) 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Co. and having gone through the impugned order as well as authorities, placed on record by the learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Co., this Court is called upon to examine the legality and validity of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act against the deceased respondent and consequently the liability of the appellant Insurance Co. 6. Undisputed facts surfaced on record pending this appeal is that the respondent No.2 – original driver has expired. The attempt was made to serve the notice issued by this Court upon the respondent No.2 through Bailiff whereby the statement of sister-in-law of the deceased respondent No.2 was recorded , who has submitted that said respondent had expired 3 years back as per endorsement made by the Bailiff dated 18.06.2022. Aforesaid endorsement as recorded by the Bailiff was on 18.06.2022. Thus, the respondent No.2 Mafabhai N. Bharwad, who was owner of the offending vehicle, had expired pending the claim petition. In such circumstances, the judgment and award dated 20.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal was against the dead person. It would be relevant to mention that the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased owner were not brought on record. However, at the same, the original claimant being the wife of the deceased owner of the vehicle, was on record in her capacity as the claimant of the deceased. It would be relevant to mention that the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased owner were not brought on record. However, at the same, the original claimant being the wife of the deceased owner of the vehicle, was on record in her capacity as the claimant of the deceased. The question therefore arises is whether the judgment and award in the facts of the case, can be treated as nullity ?. 7. The Insurance company at the stage of appeal has disputed its liability by raising the issue of non-joinder of heirs and legal representatives as party respondents. This leads to the core issue as to whether claim petition was maintainable, in absence of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased owner being brought on record, against the Insurance Co. At this stage, it would be apt to look into section 155 of the Act which provides that the death of an insured does not bring about abatement of the proceeding. Section 155 of the Act deals with the situation where even in the case of the dead person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, the cause of action to claim still survives against the insurer. Section 155 of the Act 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 the said event against his estate or against the insurer.” 8. Thus, the said provision clearly suggests that even in the case of death of a person in whose favour certificate of insurance is issued, if such death occurred after happening of the accident, which give rise to the claim under the provisions of the Act, shall not be bar to the survival of the said cause against his estate or his insurer. In light of the aforesaid provision, even upon death of the owner, who is husband of the claimant, she being legal heir of the deceased definitely steps in the shoes of the insured. In light of the aforesaid provision, even upon death of the owner, who is husband of the claimant, she being legal heir of the deceased definitely steps in the shoes of the insured. However, the same would not rebut her claim against the Insurance Co. In view of the aforesaid provision in my opinion, even in absence of an heir and legal representative being brought on record of the deceased owner pending the claim petition, the claim against the insurer shall survive and the proceedings shall not be abated. It is pertinent to note that the accident took place on 17.02.2013, the claim petition was preferred before the Tribunal on 27.06.2013 and the owner of the offending vehicle, who has been arraigned as opponent No.1 in the said claim petition is reported to have expired on 17.12.2018. Thus on the date of accident, the certificate of Insurance issued by the appellant – Insurance Co. was in force and the subsequent demise of the owner of the vehicle pending claim petition would not absolve the Insurance Co. from its contractual liability. In view of Section 155 of the Act, the claim put forward by the original claimant shall not be barred upon the death of the owner of the offending vehicle in whose favor certificate of insurance had been issued. Hence, there is no merits in the aforesaid submission of the appellant insurance company and is hereby rejected. 9. I have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Co. Unfortunately, the attention of the Coordinate Bench has not been drawn to the aforesaid provisions prescribed under the Act. Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant are not tenable in view of Section 155 of the Act. 10. Having held so, the next question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award against the present appellant Insurance Co. 11. I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and award. The Insurance Co. in absence of the owner of the offending vehicle had raised the issue of liability mainly on two grounds. The Insurance Co. 11. I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and award. The Insurance Co. in absence of the owner of the offending vehicle had raised the issue of liability mainly on two grounds. The Insurance Co. has contended before the Tribunal that no cogent material has been led by the claimant to establish that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Secondly, the Insurance Co. has raised the issue of liability by raising grounds of breach of terms and conditions by contending that driver of the vehicle did not hold valid license on the date of accident and the deceased was traveling as unauthorized passenger on the offending vehicle. 12. In order to appreciate the aforesaid grounds raised by the Insurance Co., the Tribunal has examined and appreciated the evidence of the claimant in light of complaint at Exhibit 29 and the Panchnama of the place of accident Exhibit 30 respectively and has arrived at a finding that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries in the accident as the tractor had turned turtle. The involvement of the vehicle and the manner in which the accident has taken place has emerged on record from the panchnama of the place of incident, which is produced on record vide Exhibit 30, which corroborates the evidence of the original claimant. In such circumstances, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending trractor. Additionally, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the driver of the tractor has not entered into the witness box nor has he been examined by the Insurance Co. No other eye-witness has also been examined to discard the evidence of the original claimant. 13. The next question which falls for consideration as regards the liability of the Insurance Co., the Tribunal has taken notice of the fact that the policy was effective at the time of accident and has thus, held the appellant Insurance Co. jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not dealt with the aforesaid submissions of the Insurance Co. with regard to the breach of the policy. jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not dealt with the aforesaid submissions of the Insurance Co. with regard to the breach of the policy. It would be profitable to refer to a few observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Co. reported in 2013 (10) SCC 217 , more particularly, para 10, which reads as under: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 14. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 14. Applying the aforesaid ratio in the facts of the present case, the onus was upon the insurance company to prove that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and that the owner has committed breach of provision and terms of the policy. As against the contention of the offending vehicle being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is concerned, right from inception the case put forward by the claimant that the deceased son was traveling in the offending vehicle as a laborer, is not controverted. No evidence has been laid on record by the Insurance company to establish its defense. Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant on this point is devoid of any force and is hereby not accepted. 15. The claimant mother who has lost her son has sought compensation under Section 166 of the Act. Once the claim petition is preferred under Section 166 of the Act the same is required to be dealt with just compensation to be awarded to the claimant towards untimely death of her kith and kin of her family and at the same time, Section 147 which deals with the requirement of the policy, whereby the liability of the Insurance Co. to indemnify the insurer against third person is fixed, the insurer is liable and their Insurance Co. is also liable to indemnify the insurer. In my opinion, merely because the heir of the deceased owner, who happens to be husband of the claimant being not brought on record, the claim petition cannot be rejected in view of Section 155 of the Act and the claimant is entitled to seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act. In that event, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Insurance Co. cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insurer simply because the insurer seems to be the recipient. Hence, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. In that event, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Insurance Co. cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insurer simply because the insurer seems to be the recipient. Hence, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 20.01.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in MACP No.672 of 2013 is hereby confirmed. In view of the disposal of the main First Appeal, connected Civil Application No.01 of 2022 does not survive and hence, disposed of.