(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) The appellant has challenged the order dated 25.7.2003 by which the MACT, Pratapgrah passed the order only of distribution of the amount, which was awarded by the MACT, Pratapgarh on 28.2.2003.
(3.) The facts relevant are that the claimants Babru and Lehari Bai submitted a claim petition in the MACT, Pratapgarh claiming that their son Suresh Chand died in the accident and at the time of death he was getting salary of Rs. 2,200.00. In the claim the matter was settled by compromise. Before that the appellant claiming herself to be wife of deceased Suresh Chand submitted an application for being impleaded as party in the claim petition and she was impleaded as party. The compromise was arrived at after becoming party in the petition. The Tribunal passed the award holding that applicants are entitled for Rs. 1,75,000.00 from non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company. This award dated 28.2.03 was not challenged till the said amount was received by the MACT When the matter was taken up for the apportionment of the awarded amount an objection was raised that originally claimant Lehari Bai is not entitled for any amount because she is not wedded wife of father of deceased Suresh Chand. The said objection was rejected by the MACT by order dated 25.7.2003. The appellant being aggrieved against the above order dated 25.7.2003 preferred this appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the learned Judge, MACT had committed illegality in not specifying the amount for each claimant in its award dated 28.2.2003. It is also submitted that since claimant Lehari Bai was not wedded wife of father of the deceased therefore amount of Rs. 30,000.00 awarded to Lehari Bai is illegal. This Court directed the appellant to specify how the appeal is maintainable against the impugned order dated 25.7.2003 by which only consequential order of apportion was passed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that order dated 25.7.2003 is a part of the original so award only.