JUDGMENT : 1. Considering the peculiar issue raised, all the matters are taken up for final disposal forthwith. 2. Mr. Dharm Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in all these matters, the applications have been filed challenging the orders passed by the MACT (Aux), Tharad at Banaskantha dated 24.8.2023 in MACEX nos. 06/2021, 07/2021, 08/2021 and 09/2021, where the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the claimants to join legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle in execution petition, where the award was passed on 19.11.2009 in MACP nos.511/1993, 512/1993, 1002/1994, 1171/1994 wherein the driver–Hakmaji Samtaji was deleted from the cause title and the proceedings continued against Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the claimants could not have the fruits of the judgment and award since the insurance company came to be exonerated and no order for pay and recover was made and thus, the claimants had no option, but to proceed against the owner for the recovery of the amount. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the execution petition was filed and during that process, by way of Bailiff report, it came to the knowledge of the claimant that Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya died on 24.5.1996. Advocate Mr. Raval stated that during the trial proceedings, driver came to be deleted while the owner of the vehicle, the deceased with a view to avoid the proceedings, though duly served, had not appeared before the Tribunal and hence, submitted that there was no means to verify about the owner since he was not represented by any advocate on record. 3. Advocate Mr. Raval stated that as soon as the Bailiff report came to the knowledge of the claimants, the application was moved before the Executing Court which was before MACT (Aux) for substituting the legal heirs of Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the application came to be rejected observing that the deceased had died during pendency of the proceedings and hence, the award or decree cannot be passed against the dead person and the award being non-est, it cannot be executed. 4. Advocate Mr. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the application came to be rejected observing that the deceased had died during pendency of the proceedings and hence, the award or decree cannot be passed against the dead person and the award being non-est, it cannot be executed. 4. Advocate Mr. Raval has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narayanbhai Khemabhai Parmar, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 245466 and referring to provision of Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, submitted that there cannot be any abatement in case of death of the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued since the cause of action would continue and there shall be no bar to the survival of the cause of action arising out of the death of any person in whose favour the certificate of insurance is issued and the person can proceed against his estate and thus, stated that despite Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the survival of the cause of action would not have any hindrance owing to the death of the owner of the vehicle in whose favour the certificate of insurance was issued. 5. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Raval for the petitioner, it is to be noted that the insurance company has been exonerated and the liability to make the payment had been laid down on the owner of the jeep bearing registration no.GJ-8 T-8029. The judgment of the Tribunal shows that the policy i.e. certificate of insurance was in favour of the owner of the vehicle which was put in evidence at Exh.42. The relevant provision which would cover the case of the claimants is under Section 155 of the Act, which 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.” 6. The specific provision is made to ensure that the death of the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, would not be a hindrance for the continuation of the cause. Section 155 of the M.V. Act clarifies that despite anything contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the death of the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, if it occurs after the vehicular accident, on the basis of which the claim petition has been moved, the death of the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance is issued thereafter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event and claimants can proceed against the estate of the deceased. 7. Here in the present matter, prayer was made by the claimant to substitute the heirs of the owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the provision of Section 155 of the M.V. Act which clarifies that such death of a person after the incident on which the cause of action has been raised does not non-suit the claimants, the claim can continue and the proceedings does not get abated and thus, there would not be any abatement of the proceedings even if the trial has been concluded after his death. 8. In view of the provision of Section 155 of the M.V. Act, the claim petition would not be abated on the death of the owner, simply on the fact that the legal heirs of the insured have not been impleaded as party to the claim petition. 9. Here in this case, the death of respondent no.2 was on 24.5.1996, while cause for the claim petition is of the year 1993, as the accident had occurred on 16.2.1993. The Tribunal has thus erred in considering the award as non-est and had erred in not allowing the application for substituting the legal heirs and representatives of Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya. 10. In the result, the orders dated 24.8.2023 passed by the MACT (Aux), Tharad at Banaskantha in MACEX nos. 06/2021, 07/2021, 08/2021 and 09/2021 are quashed and set aside. The said MACEX applications are ordered to be restored on the file of the concerned Tribunal. The application for bringing the heirs of the deceased Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya is allowed. 10. In the result, the orders dated 24.8.2023 passed by the MACT (Aux), Tharad at Banaskantha in MACEX nos. 06/2021, 07/2021, 08/2021 and 09/2021 are quashed and set aside. The said MACEX applications are ordered to be restored on the file of the concerned Tribunal. The application for bringing the heirs of the deceased Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya is allowed. Necessary amendment be made and the execution petition shall proceed against the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed in the above terms. Direct service is permitted.