Gurusharan Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard the parties. It is unfortunate that Compensation Case No. 43 of 1997, filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in respect of death of Umesh Karjee in a motor accident dated 1.2.1977 is still pending at the preliminary stage and its hearing has not commenced as yet. In the meantime both the original claimants, namely, the father and the grandmother of the deceased also died. Swadhin Karjee who is nephew of late Munsi Karjee, father of the deceased, claiming to have also been adopted as son by Munsi Karjee, after the death of his only son, by virtue of registered deed dated 19.2.1998, filed petition for being substituted as claimant, which was allowed on 5.7.1999. The substituted claimant thereafter filed an application under section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation, which was allowed on 2.8.1999. The insurance company challenged the said order in this court in M.A. No. 285 of 1999 which was disposed of on 19.2.2001 and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the objection of the insurance company of the entitlement of Swadhin Karjee for interim compensation. The Claims Tribunal by impugned order dated 8.2.2002 held him entitled to receive the same. The insurance company has again challenged the said order in the present appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly Swadhin Karjee was more than 15 years old at the time of alleged adoption and as mentioned in the adoption deed dated 19.2.1998, he was aged about 23 years and hence, unless it is proved that there was such a custom or usage that a person, who had completed the age of 15 years could also have been taken in adoption Umesh Karjee cannot be accepted as legally adopted son of late Munsi Karjee. He can also not be called a legal representative of the deceased, as required under section 166 of the Act and after death of the original claimants the compensation case itself became infructuous.
(3.) We find substance in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of insurance company, which is required to be considered at the time of hearing of the compensation case, on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties.;