THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1465 of 1998 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the award, dated 28.12.1995, passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.126 of 1991, wherein and whereby a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- was granted as compensation for the death of one Ejjantkar Bala Kumar Rao, who died in a road accident that occurred on 23.04.1991, the claimants preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Originally, the appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased, and after her death, appellants 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-first appellant. 4. The prime contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in the apportionment of the compensation awarded by it. He contended that the Tribunal held that the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.20,000/-, which is not just and proper and therefore, he prays to enhance the share of compensation to the mother of the deceased. 5. Appellant No.2 is said to be the co-sister-in-law of the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the deceased, and appellant No.3 is the daughter of appellant No.2. 6. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded the compensation and apportioned the same among the claimants as per their entitlement. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned award cannot be said to be improper or illegal and accordingly, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Apart from that, appellants 2 and 3, who were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-first appellant, who are said to be the daughter- in-law and grand daughter of the deceased-first respondent cannot be termed as the legal heirs of the deceased-first respondent as per the Hindu Succession Act and hence, they are not the competent persons to seek the relief as sought for in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22nd July 2010 dr