JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. challenges the judgment and award dated 5.10.2018 passed by the MACT, Sabarkantha at Idar in MACP No. 300/11. 2. The owner of tractor no. GJ-9 AF-1552 has been made party respondent no. 4 and when the notice of R/Civil Application (for condonation of delay) no. 4117/19 was processed to be served, it had come on record that respondent no. 4 had expired and the bailiff report along with the copy of the death certificate showed the date of death of respondent no. 4 on 19.4.2015. 3. Learned advocate Mr. R.P. Raval, placing reliance on the bailiff report supported by the copy of the death certificate, submitted that the judgment and award would be a nullity since it was against the dead person as respondent no. 2, the owner of the tractor-Kanabhai Kuberbhai Parmar had died even prior to the judgment. Mr. Raval has referred to the judgments in the cases of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nirmalaben Ghanshyambhai Sen rendered in First Appeal No. 4485/18, Narsinhbhai Manjibhai Chhabhaiya vs. Kasam Ishabhai Kumbhar rendered in First Appeal No. 32469/18, United India Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mohanlal Nandiram and Others, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 309/84, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hansaben Khumansinh Padhiyar, rendered in First Appeal No. 4469/06, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sitaben Wd/o Ratanabhai Devabhai Rabari, rendered in Civil Application No. 13526/13 in First Appeal No. 3446/12, to submit that the award is a nullity since the heirs of the owner were not brought on record after his death. 4. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth submitted that the judgments referred to by Advocate Mr. Raval cannot be made applicable to the present matter since they are not decisions under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that referred judgments do not deal with the provisions on Section 155 of the Act, which firmly clarify that the death of the person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to the claim, shall not be a bar to the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings do not abate. Mr. Mr. Sheth contended that happening of the event, in this case the death in a vehicular accident is the cause, which has given rise to the claim under the Act and death of the owner of vehicle after such cause, would not bar survival of the cause of action and in such an event, the proceedings could be against the estate or against the insurer and thus, submitted that objection raised by the learned advocate for the insurance Company would not survive in view of provision of Section 155 of the Act. 5. Mr. Sheth has made reference to the judgments in the cases of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Om Parkash, passed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mac App No. 57/21 and allied matters, Shivshankara and Another vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 (5) Scale 218. Advocate Mr. Sheth has submitted that the issue was decided by this Court in the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs. Joseph Francis Mewan, passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1528 of 2009, to bear the pure question of law fell for consideration before the Single Judge. The question so formulated was whether the Tribunal below was justified in passing an award after substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant who died during the pendency of the claim petition in violation of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, wherein Mr. Sheth stated that the provisions of Sections 144, 155 and 169 of the Act were referred along with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and mention was also made to Order 22 Rule 1 of the CPC and Rule 229 of Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Mr. Sheth stated that Section 155 of the Act was referred by observing that it limits the applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act only to the case of the death of a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, where the death occurs after happening of the event, which has given rise to the claim under the provisions of Chapter X or XII of the Act and in such a case, the death of the insured shall not be a bar to the survival of the cause of action arising out of the said event against the estate of said person or consequently against the insurer. Mr. Mr. Sheth thus stated that the very provision would be applicable in the present matter and that the death was subsequent to the cause of action for the claim petition, which had arisen owing to the death in a vehicular accident. Mr. Sheth submitted that the cause would survive and the proceedings could be against the estate of the insured or against the insurer. 6. The judgment in the case of Madhuben Mahesh Patel (supra) was referred to the Division Bench and in the judgment dated 14.11.2014, the view referred was answered on the fact that even after the death of the injured claimant, the claim petition does not abate and right to sue survives to the heirs and legal representatives insofar as loss to the estate is concerned, which includes personal expenses incurred on treatment and other claim related to the loss to estate and thereafter, was referred back and on 15.12.2015, an appeal came to be allowed. 7. The referred judgment is in context with the survival of the cause of action on the death of the injured claimant. While here in this case, the death of the owner of the vehicle came to be known only at the appellate stage, where the service for the application for the delay condonation was processed to be made by the bailiff and the bailiff report supported by the copy of the death certificate, disclosed death of owner of the vehicle as on 19.4.2015. MACP no. 300/11 was registered on 6.4.2011, while decided on 5.10.2018. The cause of action for the claim arose on the death because of the vehicular accident dated 11.12.2010. Thus, the cause for the claim petition arose on 11.12.2010. Section 155 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “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. Section 155 of the Act is the provision for the consequences to the effect of death on certain causes of action. Section 155 of the Act is the provision for the consequences to the effect of death on certain causes of action. A bare perusal of the provision clarifies that despite anything in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if the death of the person in whose favour certificate of insurance has been issued occurs after happening of the event which gives rise to the claim, it shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of such event and accordingly, the proceedings could be continued against the estate of the deceased or against the insurer. The question thus would arise for consideration as to whether the judgment and award, which has been passed without impleading the heirs of the owner of the vehicle would be maintainable. 9. In a case before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. H. Siddalinga Naika and Others, 1985 ACJ 1989, an issue had been raised, where the insurance Company contended that since the owner of the vehicle had died during pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal and as legal heirs were not brought on record, the Tribunal could not have passed the award against the insurance Company. The Division Bench, having rejected the contention, had observed as under: “There is no substance in the contention so raised because section 102, Motor Vehicles Act, states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 306, Succession Act, 1925, the death of 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.” In this case, the claim petition was already filed before the Tribunal and insurance company had issued the policy. That being so, the fact that the owner of the lorry dies, makes no difference. The Tribunal has rightly passed award against the insurer. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs in the appeal.” 10. That being so, the fact that the owner of the lorry dies, makes no difference. The Tribunal has rightly passed award against the insurer. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs in the appeal.” 10. A similar issue was raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Natha Singh vs. Gurdial Singh and Others, AIR 1982 P&H 38 , where the objection was raised by the insurance Company that it was not liable to satisfy the claim for the compensation because the legal representative of the insured who died during pendency of the proceedings were not brought on record. Punjab and Haryana High Court, while rejecting the objection so raised, has observed as under: “Section 96 of the Act provides for the duty of the insured to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. It also provides that the insurance company or the insurer to whom the notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is given, shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the grounds given therein. Section 102 of the Act provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (XXXIX 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.” In view of these provisions of the Act, it cannot be said that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the claim for compensation to be awarded in the claim application simply because the legal representatives of Amrit Lal Gupta insured who died during the pendency of the proceedings, were not brought on the record. It is particularly so because in the insurance policy, Exhibit R-11, it has been provided inter-alia vide Cl. It is particularly so because in the insurance policy, Exhibit R-11, it has been provided inter-alia vide Cl. (4) of Section II, thereof that the company may, on its own option, undertake the defence of proceedings in any Court of law in respect of any act or alleged offence causing or relating to any event which may be the subject of indemnity under that section. It was because of this term of the policy that the insurance company took a specific plea in paragraph 3 of their additional grounds that it had taken over the defence of the claim petition in the name of the insured to contest the claim, as they had reserved the right under the policy of insurance. As observed earlier, this claim was accepted by the Tribunal and on that account, it was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, on merits, as well. Under the circumstances, the ratio of the decision in Norati Devi's Case, AIR 1978 P&H 113 (supra), is most relevant. It has been held therein (at p. 114): “Section 96 only clarifies that if an award is made, it would be the duty of the insurance company to meet the claim. It nowhere lays down that if the insurance company is allowed to contest the liability in the absence of the insured, it should not be held liable. Therefore, it cannot be contended that an insurance company can never be held liable so long as the insured is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings, or having been impleaded his name is ordered to be struck off from the array of the respondents on the basis that he enjoys diplomatic immunity from being sued in a Court.” In view of the abovesaid decision of this Court, the claim application of Natha Singh, appellant, could not be dismissed on the ground that the legal representatives of Amrit Lal Gupta, deceased, were not brought on the record.” 11. In the same way, the Court at Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar and Another (M.A. No. 18/2016, decided on 25.10.2021), has observed that Section 155 of the Act clearly states that the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has been issued, after the happening of the accident which gave rise to filing of claim petition is no bar to the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings do not abate. 12. The law is very clear by way of provision under Section 155 of the Act, which makes it explicit that on the death of the insured after the cause of action for filing the claim petition, the claim petition cannot be thrown out merely because legal heirs of the insured have not been impleaded as party to the claim petition. Here in this case, the death of the insured has taken place only after occurrence of the accident and not prior and at the time of the accident, the certificate of insurance had been issued by the appellant-insurance Company in favour of the deceased owner, which was in force. Hence, the claim petition would be saved in view of provision of Section 155 of the Act as the claimant can proceed even against the estate of the insured or can further proceed against the insurer. Thus, in view of the reasons given hereinabove, non-impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased owner would not have any adverse effect on the merits of the case and the insurer cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant on the ground that the legal heirs of the deceased were not made parties to the claim petition. Hence, even in absence of the owner of the vehicle or the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased owner of the vehicle, the claim petition could proceed against the estate of the insured owner of the vehicle and even against the insurer. Thus, objection so raised by the learned advocate for the insurance Company stands rejected. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of. Since the appeal is disposed of, Civil Application would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.