Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46572 Court No. - 7 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 818 of 2018 Appellant :- Yuvraji Devi Now Died And Anr. Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Dhuriya And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Kaushal Kishore,Girish Chandra Verma,Nandini Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Kumar,Tarun Kumar Misra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short Act of 1988) being aggrieved against the order dated 25.08.2018 whereby in Claim Petition No.69 of 2016 (Yuvraji Devi Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya and another) upon the death of the original claimant, the appellant no.2 had moved an application seeking his substitution on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Smt. Yuvraji Devi which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.08.2018. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in a motor accident on 11.09.2015, the husband of the original claimant, namely, Ram Shabd Verma expired. Smt. Yuvraji Devi being the widow instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 which came to be registered as Claim Petition No.69 of 2016. 4. During pendency of the claim petition Smt. Yuvraji Devi expired. Thereafter the appellant no.2 Santosh Kumar claimed right to be impleaded on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Smt. Yuvraji Devi. On the aforesaid application for substitution, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that since in the accident, Ram Shabd Verma died and apparently the present appellant no.2 was not dependent on Ram Shabd Verma nor he has to be treated as the legal representative, hence his application for substitution was rejected with the aforesaid reasoning and proceedings were consigned to record. 5. Submission is that upon the death of Ram Shabd his wife Smt. Yuvraji Devi had already initiated the claim proceedings. Any compensation which was to be awarded would form part of the estate of Smt. Yuvraji Devi, which she would have acquired and upon her death as she had executed a Will in favour of the appellant no.2, hence he was a legal representative and competent to pursue and take the claim petitions to its logical conclusion. It is urged that in the aforesaid context, the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting the substitution application is patently erroneous. 6. Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Shri Vijay Kumar for the respondent no.1 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that since the appellant no.2 was not a legal representative nor a dependent on the deceased, hence his application has rightly been rejected. 7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 8. It is an undisputed fact that Ram Shabd died in a motor accident. He was survived by his wife who had filed the claim petition. It is also undisputed that during the pendency of the claim petition, Smt. Yuvraji Devi expired. The appellant no.2 moved an application seeking his impleadment/substitution in place of Smt. Yuvraji Devi on the basis of a Will bearing Paper No.Ga-29. 9. It is now to well settled to be disputed that it is not only a dependent but also a legal heir who can institute and carry on with the proceedings for claim petitions. (See National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356) and this Court has also decided the same issue in First Appeal From Order No.468 of 2011, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC- LKO:45621) 10. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the appellant no.2 could not prosecute or continue proceedings under the Act of 1988. Moreover, this issue whether the appellant is the legal representative and regarding his right to get the compensation is to be considered and decided by the Tribunal on merit and not at the stage of consideration of an application for substitution especially there is no contrary or conflicting claim by some other party. Thus the reasoning adopted by the MACT is patently erroneous and against the dictum of this Court as well as the Apex Court as noticed hereinabove. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 25.08.2018 cannot be sustained and accordingly the claim petition shall stand restored with the MACT concerned where the parties shall appear on 1st of September, 2025, on which date, appropriate orders will be passed considering the application of the appellant no.2 and thereafter the claim petition be decided on merits after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of six months. 12. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. Costs are made easy. The record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench