JUDGMENT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, dated October 28, 1987, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- only.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 Jasvinder Singh (owner of the offending truck) died. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that he wrote letters to the appellants for intimating him the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Jasvinder Singh, they have replied that they are not in a position to send the names and addresses of the legal representatives and as such he was not able to move an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent Jasvinder Singh on record vide order-sheet dated April 23,1991.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that even without impleading the legal representatives of the respondent No. 1, the appeal had not abated. He relied upon Gawari v. Pratap Singh 1988 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan).
4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (insurance company) that the appeal had stood abated.
5. The appeal had not abated for not bringing the legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 Jasvinder Singh on record. Rule 20, Rajasthan Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 had and now Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 has made applicable certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure specified therein. Order 22 was and is not included in the Rules. As such the provisions of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, did not and still do not apply to these proceedings. Even Order 22, Rule 4(1), Civil Procedure Code provides that where one or two or more defendants die and right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendants or defendant alone, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. Sub-rule (3) further provides that when within the time limited by law no application is made under Sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. Section 102, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ran as under:
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.
Thus on the death of the insured, the right to sue survived against the insurer. As such it was not necessary to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 Jasvinder Singh (insured) on record as right to sue survived against the New India Assurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 3.
6. Accordingly, it is held that the appeal had not abated on the failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 Jasvinder Singh on record. The appeal will proceed. A note of death will be given in the memorandum of appeal against the name of the respondent No. 1.