IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 548 of 2005 Aman Kumar … Appellant Versus Rajeshwar Prasad & others … Respondents Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the appellant Sri M. K. Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 4 Dated: April 8, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 5.9.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C. Case No. 33 of 2003, Aman Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereby the petition filed by the claimant was rejected. Perusal of the record reveals that Shyam Lal had died in an accident and for his death, his widow Smt. Beena Devi had preferred claim petition no, 84/2002 and another claim petition no. 70/2002 was preferred by mother of the deceased. Both these petitions were consolidated and decided on 8.3.2003 in Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise between the parties and award of Rs. 1,70,000/- was given to the claimant. The contention of the present claimant-Aman Kumar is that at the time of accident of his father- Shyam Lal he was in the womb of his mother and after his birth he has filed this petition being the legal heir. The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by Aman Kumar-son of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant-Aman Kumar has filed this appeal before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the appellant-claimant Aman Kumar at the time of the death of his father was in the womb of his mother and his mother and grand mother have preferred claim petitions for compensation for the death of Shyam Lal and they have been paid compensation and the matter of compensation has finally been decided. He cannot re-agitate the matter finally decided by filing the subsequent petition. He at the most can claim his share from the other heirs of the deceased-Shyam Lal, who have been paid compensation for the death of deceased-Shyam Lal. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the point pertaining to the legal heirs of the deceased and their shares, cannot be decided in the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, which are of summary nature. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP