(1.) The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.5.2013 passed in connection with Claim Case No. 1/2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has reviewed the findings and award passed by him in connection with M.V. Claim Case No. 1/2008 vide dated 20th October, 2012 and ordered to distribute the awarded amount in equal share to all the claimants including the intervener as well as another married daughter-Soni Sharma of late Indra Lal Sharma, who was not a party to the Claim Case. It is submitted by the appellants that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the judgment and award passed by him in connection with Claim Case No. 1/2008 dated 20th October, 2012 suo motu. Since Soni Sharma was married and she was living separately with her husband and in-laws, it was not necessary to make her party to the Claim Case because she was not dependent on her deceased-father. Likewise Droupdi Devi is admittedly stepmother of the deceased and she would be considered as Class-II heir according to Hindu Succession Act. When Class-I legal heirs are there, it was not needed to implead Class-II heir and she shall not be entitled for any share in the property of deceased-Indra Lal Sharma, who was her stepson.
(2.) It is further contended that the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 was not considered and it was rejected, which is apparent in the impugned order itself and if it was so how the share in the awarded amount was allotted to her.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claimants had not contested the case with clean hands and they had committed forgery by producing some documents on which name of claimant Seema Kumari was written but photograph of Soni Sharma was pasted. At the time of death of deceased both his daughters Soni Sharma and Seema Kumari were married and therefore, status of both the daughters was same. The claimants have also concealed said fact to get the award made in their favour.