HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1653 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.150 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, by the petitioners challenging the apportionment of the compensation to respondents 3 and 4. 2. The claim was made consequent on the death of the deceased Gorrela Suryanarayana, who died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The 1st petitioner claimed that she is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children born to her through the deceased. The respondent No.3 was said to be the divorced wife of the deceased and 4th respondent is the son. After determining the issues, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners contend that the apportionment of the share equally to the petitioners 3 and 4 is not proper. Evidently, the objection of the appellants cannot be considered. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the deceased. There is nothing to show that there was a valid divorce and unless and until such a divorce is there, the 1st petitioner cannot be said to be a legally wedded wife of the deceased. In fact, this aspect was considered by the lower Tribunal in para No.8 of the judgment and Ex.B.1 the legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer also discloses that respondents 3 and 4 are the legal heirs of Suryanarayana apart from the petitioners. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the respondent No.4, who was a minor, was the son of the deceased and there being no proof of the 3rd respondent having been legally divorced, the objections raised by the appellants cannot be sustained. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the apportionment challenged by the appellants herein. However, the learned standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 represents that another appeal was pending with regard to the liability of the Corporation and it is needless to say that enforcement of this decree will be subject to the decision of that appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2011 INL