:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8119 OF 2007 Smt. Sindhu Sanjay Vharkute and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Smt. Babai Sanjay Vharkute and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Prataprao J. Shinde for petitioners. Mr. V.S. Talkute for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Vidyarthi for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 17, 2008. Date : April 17, 2008. Date : April 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shinde the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Rule. 3. Mr. Talkute waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Vidyarthi waives service for respondent no.4. Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. :2: 4. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Sanjay Vharkute and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are her children born from Sanjay Vharkute. Respondent no.1 claims that she was married to Sanjay Vharkute on 14/8/1985 and respondent no.2 was born on 16/5/1987 and respondent no.3 was born on 1/5/1989. As per the contentions of respondent no.1, it was thereafter that Sanjay Vharkute married petitioner no.1 and begot three children from her. Sanjay Vharkute was a driver and he died in an accident that had taken place on 14/8/1998. The petitioners had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 705 of 1998 and claimed for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondents were not joined as additional applicants/claimants. The Claim Petition was allowed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Satara on 21/2/2003 and the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company were directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 28/10/1998 till realisation of the entire amount of compensation and interest. The amount of :3: compensation shall be inclusive of the amount, if any received by the petitioners, of no fault liability. The Tribunal further directed that the compensation deposited shall be paid to all the petitioners in equal proportion. But so far as the share of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 was concerned, it was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank till they attained majority. They were shown as minors in the Claim Petition. However, as of now, it is not known whether any of them has attained majority or married. So far as the share of petitioner no.1 is concerned, she has withdrawn the same and perhaps spent for the household expenses. In addition she has been getting interest on the amount invested by way of fixed deposit as the guardian of petitioner nos.2 to 4. 5. The respondents submitted delay condonation Application No. 2 of 2005 pointing out that on 23/4/2005 she came to know about the award passed by the MACT and, therefore, she went to petitioner no.1 and asked for her share as well as the share of her children in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, but she was denied the same. She also :4: alleged that the petitioner no.1 had obtained her thumb impression before she filed the claim petition but did not take any steps to implead the respondent no.1 as well as her two children as the joint claimants. Under these circumstances, she applied for restoration of the claim petition and prayed for the delay caused in the same to be condoned. By the impugned order dated 17/7/2007 the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-4, Satara has condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. 6. It is well settled that once an award has been passed by the Tribunal and it has been implemented, the Tribunal becomes functus officio. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not the claimants before the Tribunal in MACT No.705 of 1998 and if they have any claim in the amount awarded by the Tribunal, their remedy may be somewhere else. They may apply for a probate or succession certificate so as to determine their share in the awarded amount and on the basis of the order passed by the competent court in such a proceeding, they will have to file appropriate proceedings further and claim the share along with petitioner nos.2 to 4. :5: The Tribunal does not have powers to entertain an application for restoration of the claim petition, filed by the applicants who were not before it. The application made by the respondents cannot be treated on par with an application made by the party to the petition and who had remained absent or allowed the claim petition to be decided ex parte. 7. Hence, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17/7/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and resultantly Delay Application No. 2 of 2005 stands dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondent nos.1 to 3 to take out appropriate proceeding to determine their respective shares as successors of late Sanjay Vharkute. The deposited amount, which is lying in the names of petitioner nos.2 to 4 shall not be allowed to be withdrawn for a period of six months from today and the deposit, if due for renewal, shall be renewed by the concerned bank. 8. Rule is made absolute. No costs. :6: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)