THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.2444 of 2003 JUDGMENT This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order of dismissal, dated 11.12.2003, passed in O.P.No.652 of 1997 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appellants herein are the petitioners in O.P.No.652 of 1997. The first appellant is the mother, second appellant is the brother and third and fourth appellants are the sisters of the deceased G. Balaiah. They filed the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the motor accident occurred on 04.03.1997 when he was going on bicycle to his agricultural lands due to hit by a private bus bearing No.APR-8311 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. During trial, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on her behalf. None were examined on behalf of the respondents, but Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. On over all scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, the lower Court dismissed the O.P. observing that the O.P. filed by the mother, brother and sisters of the deceased is not maintainable as the compensation was awarded earlier by the Lok Adalat in O.P.No.945 of 1997 filed by the wife and in-laws of the deceased and it also observed that P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, may recover her share in O.P.No.945 of 1997. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the order of dismissal passed in O.P.No.652 of 1997 by the lower Court is erroneous on the ground of awarding compensation in O.P.No.945 of 1997 filed by the wife and the in-laws of the deceased and that the lower Court ought to have clubbed O.P.Nos.652 and 945 of 1997 before awarding compensation in O.P.No.945 of 1997. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court is sustainable in law. Either of the parties herein did not dispute the accident. The appellants, no doubt, are the family members of the deceased. Admittedly, the first appellant is the mother, second appellant is the brother and third and fourth appellants are the sisters of the deceased. Earlier, the wife of the deceased filed O.P.No.945 of 1997 claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband and the same was settled before the Lok Adalat vide award, dated 24.06.1998, which came into light during the course of arguments in O.P.No.652 of 1997. The wife of the deceased did not implead the other family members i.e., mother, brother and sisters of the deceased in the O.P.No.945 of 1997, which was settled before the Lok Adalat. The respondents did not dispute the relationship of the appellants with the deceased. The present O.P. was filed subsequent to the O.P. filed by the wife of the deceased. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not explain the reason for not impleading the wife of the deceased in the present O.P. before adjudication of the matter. If the appellants impleaded the wife of the deceased in the present O.P., certainly, she assigned reasons for filing O.P.No.945 of 1997 separately prior to the present O.P. on hand. Two parallel proceedings were conducted in the lower Court and the Lok Adalat. If the counsels appearing for the parties in both the O.Ps have informed the Court about the pendency of two O.Ps., with regard to the same accident, the lower Court would have taken steps for dispose of both cases together by a common order. The counsel for the appellants for the reasons best known to him kept quite all through and the appellants, now, raised contention that they are not aware of the earlier O.P. filed by the wife of the deceased. Therefore, in my considered view, the said plea is without any substantial proof. The appellants herein should have objected the granting of compensation exclusively to the wife of the deceased in O.P.No.945 of 1997 by impleading themselves as parties. They have not taken any steps in that regard. If they have taken any steps to add the wife of the deceased in the present O.P., there is somewhat feasible to appreciate the contention of the appellants at this stage. Therefore, as I have stated earlier that for the reasons best known to the appellants, filed the present O.P., without adding the wife of the deceased. In the said circumstances, no two claims are maintainable against one cause of action. Therefore, viewed from any angle and also in totality of the circumstances, the finding of the lower Court is sustainable and the appellants are at liberty to take appropriate steps to recover their share in O.P.No.945 of 1997, if they are entitled to as per law. With the above findings, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Date: .01.2011 sj