THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4331 of 2009 Date:08.12.2009. Between: Shaik Jani Mia and others. And D.Sammaiah, Thukaramnagar, North lallaguda, Secunderabad. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4331 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 27.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.934 of 2009 in O.P.No.197 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to receive the amount awarded towards the share of 4th claimant namely; Shaik Kareem. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners, are:- The wife of Shaik Janimiya died in a road accident. A claim petition has been filed by him and his two sons and one daughter. The claim was referred to Lok Adalat and an award came to be passed by the Lok Adalat on 27.12.2008. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was granted as compensation. Pending the proceedings, Janimia i.e., claimant No.1 died and therefore, the compensation amount came to be apportioned among two sons and daughter as follows:- “Claimant No.2 Shaik Saleem-son - Rs.1,00,000/- Claimant No.3 Shaik Jani Begum-daughter - Rs. 75,000/- Claimant No.4 Shaik Kareem-son - Rs. 75,000/-” Accordingly, an award came to be passed on 27.12.2008. Subsequently, claimant No.4 Shaik Kareem died on 7.3.2009. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 filed I.A.No.934 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC seeking permission of the Court to receive the amount awarded towards the share of the claimant No.4. The application filed by them came to be dismissed by the learned Chairman, Motor Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet by order dated 27.7.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 14.9.2009. Despite notice being served on the R2, it did not choose to enter appearance. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the only legal representatives being the brother and sister of the claimant No.4 and therefore, they are entitled to withdraw the amount apportioned to claimant No.4. It appears that claimant Nos.2 and 3, who claimed to be the brother and sister of the 4th claimant, are not declared as legal representatives by any of the proceedings in the Court. Therefore, the petitioners 2 and 3 must first get themselves recognized as legal representatives of the claimant No.4 and then they can move an application seeking permission to withdraw the amount apportioned to claimant No.4. In that view of the matter, I do not see any flaw in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy Date:4.12.2009 Note: Furnish CC within one week. B/O mrb