JUDGMENT 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/-. 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/- 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/- 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. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 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. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. It is relevant to mention here that the award dated 28.2.2003 holding entitlement of the Lehari Bai is final and cannot be challenged by the appellant and there appears to be no reason to challenge the said award because of the reason that the award was passed in the presence of the appellant herself and she also agreed for the said award. By this, she admitted the entitlement of Lehari Bai as original claimant. This fact is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the appellant today also that she was impleaded as party and thereafter the award was passed. 5. So far as the apportionment of the award is concerned, assuming for the sake of the argument that appeal is maintainable still the question of entitlement which attained the finality by award dated 28.2.2003 cannot be to re-examined and only question which can be examined is the amount of the award distributed is just and proper or not. Here in this case since only question raised about the entitlement of Lehari Bai for getting share in the awarded amount is involved, therefore, that was beyond the jurisdiction of the MACT while deciding the entitlement of the share in the awarded amount looking to the fact and circumstances of the case. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******