APURVA SHARMA Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Lahari Sharma who is representing the petitioners Apurva Sharma and Yashashvi Sharma is maternal grandfather and next friend of the petitioners who are minors. He is aggrieved of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 14.12.1999 by which the claim petition filed by the maternal grandfather of the petitioners, SHIV Lahari Sharma has been rejected on the ground that there is already a claim petition pending in regard to the claim of compensation which was filed by the paternal grandfather of the minor children. The dispute claiming guardianship of the minor petitioners between the maternal grandfather and the paternal grandfather respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is pending before a competent civil court but in the meantime they are feuding bitterly as to who is actually the legal guardian of the children, who is competent to pursue the dispute in regard to the claim of compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. One claim petition was filed in the year 1997 by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, paternal grandparents of the minor children Apurva and Yashashvi which is pending. During pendency of the said claim petition, the maternal grandfather of the minor children of the deceased victim who has preferred this writ petition, also filed a fresh claim petition in the year 1997 claiming that he alone is entitled to contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. The maternal grandfather SHIV Lahari Sharma had also filed an application for impleadment in the claim petition filed by the paternal grandfather which was allowed against which the paternal grandfather had filed the writ petition bearing S.B.C.S. Petition No. 2806 of 1997 which was dismissed on 21.8.99 confirming the order of the Tribunal that the maternal grandfather will also be allowed to intervene and pursue the claim petition pending before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal dismissed the subsequent claim petition filed by the maternal grandfather of the minor petitioners vide order dated 14.12.1999 stating that the maternal grandfather SHIV Lahari Sharma is already allowed to be impleaded in the claim petition filed by the paternal grandfather, Hanuman Prasad Sharma and, therefore, there is no need to entertain a fresh claim petition in regard to the same accident claiming compensation due to death of the parents of the minor children Apurva and Yashashvi. This writ petition is directed against that order at the instance of the maternal grandfather SHIV Lahari Sharma. It is obvious that the maternal grandfather SHIV Lahari Sharma has already been granted the relief to contest the matter through the claim petition filed by the paternal grandfather and hence I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal which has been pleased to reject the claim petition filed by the maternal grandfather separately, as two parallel proceedings claiming compensation in regard to one and the same accident in which the minor children, petitioners herein, lost their parents cannot be allowed to continue. It is further obvious that ultimately the dispute in regard to guardianship of the minor children will be decided and decreed by the competent court before whom the matter is sub judice and ultimately the amount of compensation will be received by the legal guardian of the minor children as per the decree of the civil court. It is difficult to understand what really can be the anxiety of the maternal grandfather to institute a separate proceeding except for personal reason to file a separate claim which cannot be presented for the reason assigned as stated hereinbefore. The writ petition thus is devoid of merit and hence it stands dismissed. Writ petition allowed.