JUDGMENT : M. Srinivasan, J.—It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal has not taken note of the correct facts in this case. There is no dispute that one Angammal died on account of accident on 19.2.1983. One Thoorammal filed O.P. No. 315 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) for awarding a compensation claiming to represent herself as guardian for two minors by name Balakrishnan and Gayathri. The case of the petitioners in that petition was that Thoorammal was the mother of the deceased and Balakrishnan and Gayathri were the minor children of the deceased. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence passed an award on 24.7.1984 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and directed the minors' share to be kept in fixed deposit in the State Bank of India, East Veli Street, Madurai. The Tribunal permitted the first petitioner therein, namely, Thoorammal to withdraw her share of the compensation. 2. Even when that petition was pending, the respondents herein filed a petition for an award of compensation in the court of the District Judge, Madurai. The first respondent claimed to be father of 2nd and 3rd respondents who are minors. They filed the petition against the Union of India, represented by Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, and one Thangaraju, who was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. That petition was transferred to the Subordinate. Judge, Madurai, and numbered as M.A.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1983. Notice to the second respondent was served, but notice to the first respondent had been returned. On 11.2.1983 an endorsement was made by the petitioners' counsel that the first respondent may be exonerated. Accordingly, the court passed the following orders: R-l exonerated as endorsed. Petition filed to implead the party. Call on 9.1.1984. The petition was allowed on 9.8.1984 and the consequential amendment was carried out on 13.8.1984 pursuant to the order dated 9.8.1984 in I.A. No. 598 of 1984. It was only by virtue of that amendment that the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by District Collector, Madurai was impleaded as party. 3. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Madurai, is the appellant herein. It was only by virtue of that amendment that the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by District Collector, Madurai was impleaded as party. 3. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Madurai, is the appellant herein. In the counter statement filed by the State in the O.P. it was specifically stated in para 3 that in M.A.C.O.P. No. 315 of 1983 compensation had already been awarded to the minors and their grandmother Thoorammal. All the particulars relating to M.A.C.O.P. No. 315 of 1983 were set out in the counter statement. The date of the award was also mentioned as 24.7.1984. Counter statement was filed on 25.11.1985. 4. In spite of the said counter affidavit the respondents herein did not take any steps thereafter to implead the said Thoorammal as a party thereto or take any proceedings against the said Thoorammal for recovery of the award amount from her. Instead the respondents continued the present proceedings on the basis that Thoorammal was not entitled to represent the minors. 5. Evidence was adduced by the respondents in this case and ultimately the Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 18,000/-. The Tribunal has rejected the contention put forward by the appellant as to the non-maintainability of the O.P. on the ground that legal guardian of the minors is only the first respondent herein being their father, and the appellant cannot take any advantage of the proceedings initiated by Thoorammal in M.A.C.O.P. No. 315 of 1983. 6. The view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. The only remedy of the first respondent herein after passing of the award on 24.7.1984 in M.A.C.O.P. No. 315 of 1983 is to take proceedings against the person who represented the minors claiming to be their guardian in the said proceeding and take control of the award amount deposited by the appellant herein. Though the respondents are put on notice about the order passed in O.P. No. 315 of 1983 if they had not taken appropriate steps to recover the award amount, they are the only persons to be blamed. The appellant cannot be made liable twice with respect to the same accident. 7. Though the respondents are put on notice about the order passed in O.P. No. 315 of 1983 if they had not taken appropriate steps to recover the award amount, they are the only persons to be blamed. The appellant cannot be made liable twice with respect to the same accident. 7. In that view, I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of the claim made by the respondents herein, as the Tribunal has already awarded compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Angammal by award dated 24.7.1984. There is no necessity for the Tribunal to consider the question of awarding compensation once again at the instance of another person claiming to be the legal heir of the deceased. There is no dispute that the two minors who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are undoubtedly the legal heirs of the deceased Angammal and therefore, they are entitled to compensation. 8. Hence the first respondent is directed to take appropriate proceedings, if so advised, against Thoorammal to recover the compensation amount which was taken away by her. With regard to the shares of the minors the amount is in fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, East Veli Street, Madurai and it is open to the first respondent to apply to the guardian court for appropriate directions. 9. With the above directions the C.M.A. is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1983 is set aside. Parties will bear their respective costs.