JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 66/2016, whereby, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition by holding that the claimant died after more than one year of accident, who was aged about 60 years due to natural cause other than related to his injury, therefore, claim case filed by him for compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him gets abated on his death as the right to sue do not survive, thereby rejecting the prayer for substitution by the appellant. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal, are that Rati Kanta Ray, the deceased husband of the appellant, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, which has occurred on 18.02.2016 at around 2.00 pm at Arearjhar near Forest Beat Office on NH-31 under Chapar Police Station in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The claim petition was registered as MAC Case No. 66/2016. The husband of the appellant, namely, Rati Kanta Ray was coming from Chapar market towards his home in Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AS-17/B-6574 as a passenger and all of a sudden a tractor bearing registration no. AS-19/C-6337, which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the Auto Rickshaw. As a result, the husband of the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his person, more particularly his right hand eventually his right hand has to be amputated. An FIR was lodged and a case has been registered as Chapar P.S. Case No. 60/2016 under Section 279/338 of IPC. 4. The respondents filed their respective written statements denying the claim. The respondent nos.5 and 6 (Driver and Owner of Auto Rickshaw) filed their written statement stating that the Auto Rickshaw is insured by the appellant company. 5. During the pendency of the trial, the husband of the appellant has expired on 08.05.2017. 4. The respondents filed their respective written statements denying the claim. The respondent nos.5 and 6 (Driver and Owner of Auto Rickshaw) filed their written statement stating that the Auto Rickshaw is insured by the appellant company. 5. During the pendency of the trial, the husband of the appellant has expired on 08.05.2017. Thereafter, the appellant being the legally wedded wife, filed an application for substitution on 04.07.2017, which was registered as Petition No. 1890/2017. Since, there was certain inadvertent mistake in the petition for substitution, another application was filed which was registered as Petition No.2119/2018. 6. Vide impugned order dated 05.09.2019, the learned Tribunal rejected the application for substitution and dismissed the claim petition MAC Case No. 66/2016, on the ground that the claimant/Rati Kanta Ray (since deceased) had died after more than one year of the accident and who was aged about 60 years had died in natural cause other than related to his injury. Therefore, claim petition filed by him for compensation of personal injuries suffered by him got abated on his death as the right to sue do not survive. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 dismissing the claim petition has committed a serious error, as the claim petition would not abate on the death of the person who has sustained injuries because the right to sue survives which can be substituted by his legal representatives. He submits that the appellant has the right to substitute her deceased husband as the claim for compensation still survives. 8. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly submits that the ground of dismissal of the claim petition having been abated on the death of the claimant deceased husband of the appellant and the right to sue do not survives, is not sustainable, as the death of the deceased claimant may be due to natural cause but the right to claim for compensation for injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident still survives. 9. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also considering that the death of the claimant deceased husband of the petitioner, even if, it is due to a natural cause other than the injury sustained in the motor accident, I am of the considered view that the same would not be abated on the death of the claimant and the right to sue would be survived. The claim for compensation is for the injury sustained which eventually led to amputation and would still be survived. The appellant is not seeking compensation for the death of her deceased husband rather would continue to claim for compensation for the injury sustained on account of motor accident, thus, the appellant is entitled to substitute in the claim petition. 10. In view of above, the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 66/2016 is not sustainable. Consequently, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. The appellant is directed to be allowed to substitute in the MAC Case No. 66/2016. It is directed that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon, is directed to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with law. 12. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.