HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2332 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.251 of 1994 vide order dated 24-05-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellants, who claim to be wife, children and mother, respectively, of the deceased Kanuri Somaraju, are claimants. The driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 5281 that involved in the accident, APSRTC, another wife of the deceased and her children through the deceased are respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants is that deceased died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09-03-1994 at 6-30 PM while he was going on a cycle on NH-5 road from Tadepalligudem to Eluru, as APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 5281 being driven by its driver, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed against him. The deceased was owning a cycle shop and he was a mechanic of cycle and rickshaw and on that he used to earn Rs.200/- a day. Hence, they claimed for a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- as against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Respondent No.1, driver of the APSRTC, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 - APSRTC filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed their counter contending that they are legal heirs of the deceased and they filed O.P. No.661 of 1994 before the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and award was passed on 08-06-1998 awarding a compensation of Rs.81,392/-. It is also stated that claimant Nos.1 to 3 are not the wife and children of the deceased as claimant No.1 deserted the deceased on 29-11-1989 by executing a marriage cancellation deed under the original of Ex.B-7 and she married to someone else and that claimant Nos.2 and 3 were not born through the deceased. It is further stated that deceased married respondent No.3 and through him she begot respondent Nos.4 and 5, as such, they are legal heirs of the deceased. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-5281 by its driver-1st respondent?. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation?. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?. 3. To what relief?." 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-19. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked. 9. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal dismissed the O.P. holding that compensation was already awarded to the legal heirs, respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, of the deceased in O.P. No.661 of 1994 vide order judgment 08-06-1998 and gave liberty to the claimants herein to take appropriate steps. Aggrieved of the same, claimants preferred this appeal. 10. Now the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the claimants herein are legal heirs of the deceased ? 11. In paragraph No.14 of the judgment, Tribunal observed that the impugned O.P. was transferred to it from the II Additional District Court, Eluru as per the orders in transfer O.P. No.624 of 2000 dated 06-06-2001 and it received the same on 05-07-2001, whereas O.P. No.661 of 1994 was disposed of on 08-06-1998 itself. Thus, three years prior to transfer of the impugned O.P. to the Tribunal from the II Additional District Court, Eluru, O.P. No.661 of 1994 was disposed of awarding compensation to the legal heirs (respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein) of the deceased. However, claimants herein have not taken any steps for modification of the judgment in O.P. No.661 of 1994. The record shows that transfer O.P. No.624 of 2000 was disposed of on 06-06-2001 and by then O.P. No.661 of 1994 was disposed of i.e., on 08-06-1998. Apparently, the concerned have not brought all the facts to the notice of the trial Court that disposed of O.P. No.661 of 1994. When the order in O.P. No.661 of 1994 has become final, awarding compensation to the claimants again, as observed by the Tribunal, is not justifiable. At the most, claimants can take appropriate steps for recovery of the compensation from respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are claimants in O.P. No.661 of 1994, if they are so advised. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 16, 2010. PV