The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of the legal heirs to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Workmen Compensation Act must be properly addressed, and conflicting opinions should not frustrate the legal right accrued to the appellants.

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. D Das. Also heard Mr. A Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, in MAC Case No. 137/2003.

3. Considered the respective submission of learned counsel for both the parties present before this Court.

4. The record reflects that notice upon the respondent the No. 4 could not be served as she is stated to be residing in Meghalaya and not in the given address at Goalpara.

5. Considering the crucial issues raised in this appeal and the fact that the matter is old pending one i.e. 2010 and the appellants Nos. 1 & 2 are the old aged parents of the deceased (Shah Alom) and their prayer for compensation has not been adjudicated upon, the mater is taken for disposal at this stage.

6. Briefly stating fact, it can be sum up as the present appellant Jainal Abedin & Suphiya Khatun along with other appellants Jashnur Rahman, Jaminur, and Miss Nilima Khatun all 3 (three) are minor children of the deceased (Shah Alom) along with respondent No. 4 Juleikha Bewa preferred the claim petition before the learned Tribunal at Goalpara in the year 2003. While the case was pending before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No. 4 Juleikha Bewa filed a petition before the learned Tribunal, whereby she prayed for dismissal of the case as she was not joined at the time of institution of the case here and according to her, she has filed a compensation case in WC forum as 4/2014 which is pending. The said prayer was disposed of by Tribunal on 17.09.2004 by holding that as the claim petition before the Tribunal was preferred at earlier contact of time so the case will proceed before the Tribunal and dismissed the petition so filed by the respondent No. 4. Against the said petition, respondent No. 4 preferred a writ petition vide WPC No. 8718/2004, challenging the said order and this Court by order dated 12.07.2007 directed the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh irrespective of the facts that the case was pending in both the forums, by giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties on merit. In the meantime, the present appellants after knowing about the pendency of WC Case No. 4/2004 also filed objection before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation where they were not made party but the Learned Commissioner dismissed the case as the matter is still pending before the MACT. In the meantime, the respondent herein preferred another petition before the MACT that as she has already filed the case before the Workmen Compensation Act so she not interested in the case before MACT.

7. In view of her submission, the learned Member MACT, Goalpara by its order dated 26.04.2010 dismissed the whole case in view of the fact that the WC case is pending before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation.

8. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the ground that their claim was not adjudicated by the learned Tribunal and also contended that such a finding of the learned Tribunal is contrary to his own observations that was made its earlier order dated 17.9.2004 while the Tribunal is of the opinion that the MAC Case which was filed earlier will continue and the prayer of said respondent No. 4 was rejected.

9. Now learned counsel for both the parties fairly submitted that pending said WC case was restored and also disposed of by the Commissioner awarding the compensation to the respondent No. 4 and her minor children. Be that as it may, which is subsequent one, if we consider the matter in its entirety, it is to be found that the earlier claim petition was filed by the present appellant including the said respondent but she deny to be a party in the said claim petition and has preferred the claim petition separately before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, which has as of now being decided. Learned