THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Transfer C.M.P.No.296 of 2008 And M.A.C.M.A (sr).No.19920 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: One Smt. Eswaramma is said to have died on 08.01.2004, while she was traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25U6370 at Nizamabad. It was stated that a lorry bearing No.AP25T2352 dashed against the auto rickshaw leading to multiple deaths. Respondents 1 and 2 in the transfer C.M.P., by name Manayya and Gopi filed O.P.No.364 of 2004 in the District Court-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizambad claiming compensation against the owner of the lorry, 3rd respondent herein and the petitioner/appellant, the insurer. Narasimha Rao and Nagaraju, respondents 4 and 5 in the transfer C.M.P. on the other hand filed M.V.O.P.No.837of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narasaraopet against the 3rd respondent and the petitioner/appellant for compensation. O.P.No.364 of 2004 in the Tribunal at Nizamabad is still pending, whereas M.V.O.P.No.837 of 2006 was disposed of by the Tribunal at Narasaopet on 26.03.2008 awarding a sum of Rs.1,74,500/- as compensation in favour of respondents 4 and 5 herein. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner/appellant filed the transfer C.M.P. as well as the M.A.C.M.A. against the order, dated 26.03.2008, in M.V.O.P.No.837 of 2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the two O.Ps. referred to above were filed claiming compensation on account of the death of Eswaramma. There is a serious dispute as to the relationship of the claimants in both the O.Ps. with the deceased. One denies the assertion of the others. Even if there are rival claims among various individuals, in relation to the same deceased, it is not only essential but also mandatory that the matters are decided by one and same Forum. The M.V.O.P. was disposed of by the Tribunal at Narasaraopet not being aware of the pendency of another O.P. in relation to the same incident at Nizamabad. Even now, the anomaly can be rectified. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the order in M.V.O.P.No.837 of 2006 on the file of M.A.C.T., Guntur at Narsaraopet is set aside and the matter is remanded to that Court for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh duly examining the genuinity of the claims made by the two sets of persons in relation to the same incident. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner/appellant as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall remain in deposit to the credit of M.V.O.P.No.837 of 2006 until it is disposed of. Transfer C.M.P. No.296 of 2008 is allowed and O.P.No.364 of 2004 is transferred from the M.A.C.T.- cum-District Court, Nizamabad to the M.A.C.T., Guntur at Narsaraopet. On such transfer, it shall be heard along with M.V.O.P.No.837 of 2006. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the O.Ps. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Transfer C.M.P.No.296 of 2008 And M.A.C.M.A (sr).No.19920 of 2009 Date: 13.08.2010 JSU