THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A.No. 1216 of 2005 JUDGMENT: It is unfortunate that the claim petition is dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that during pendency of the claim petition the claimant-injured died and therefore even his legal representatives have no right to claim any compensation for the injuries suffered by the deceased. in this regard, the Tribunal appears to have relied upon a decision reported in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira and others[1] wherein it was held that the suit for damages against a counsel gets abated on the death of the plaintiff, if claim is founded entirely on torts but survives if claim is based entirely on contract and if action is founded partly on contract and partly on torts, then such part of claim as relates to contract would survive and other part would stand abated. However, in a similar case, having discussed the above judgment, it was held by this Court in G. Trinadha Swamy v. Gandham Satyanarayana and others[2] that proceedings instituted before Railway Claims Tribunal by an individual claiming damages for injuries received by him in an untoward incident or accident would survive his death during pendency of proceedings and the same principle applies to cases of compensation claimed under Motor Vehicles Act. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 9.9.2005 in O.A.A. No. 252 of 2000 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, for re-consideration, on merits. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 12-8-2010. MVB. [1] AIR 1988 SC 506 [2] 2006 (4) ALT 620