Judgment :- Challenging the award dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ranipet, in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 1999, the insurance company has filed present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the present appeal is filed only for the reason that the issue with regard to the legal heirship of the deceased Vasantha was not decided by the Tribunal in spite of the defence taken by the appellant that respondents 1 to 5/claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. The learned counsel further submitted that originally the claim was made by respondents 1 to 5 claiming themselves as the husband and the children of the deceased, who had died in an accident that had occurred on 30.07.1999. During the pendency of the claim petition, the 7th respondent herein viz., Kallu has filed an application in I.A.No.1306 of 2002 and got impleaded himself as one of the respondents in the claim petition and opposed the claim made by the claimants stating that he is the husband of the deceased Vasantha. In order to substantiate the defence taken by the 7th respondent, he has also examined himself as R.W.1 and marked the ration card pertaining to the year 1993 as Ex.R-1, in which the 7th respondent has been shown as the husband of the deceased Vasantha. Moreover, on enquiry, the appellant insurance company came to know that one Renuka Devi is the wife of the 1st respondent and respondents 2 to 5 are born to the said Renuka Devi. In spite of the dispute raised by the appellant insurance company with regard to the legal heirship of the deceased Vasantha, the Tribunal has not adjudicated the said issue. Therefore, by setting aside the award dated 19.12.2008, the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the claim of respondents 1 to 5 that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5/claimants submitted that in order to prove the said claim, on the side of respondents 1 to 5, the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Walaja, was marked as Ex.P-8. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5/claimants submitted that in order to prove the said claim, on the side of respondents 1 to 5, the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Walaja, was marked as Ex.P-8. Moreover, no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant insurance company with tangible proof to disprove the claim of the respondents that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. Under such circumstances, there is no need to remand the matter to the Tribunal. 4. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the evidence adduced by R.W.1 and the ration card Ex.R-1 would show that the 7th respondent is the husband of the deceased. Under such circumstances, though there is no oral evidence on the side of the appellant insurance company, the issue with regard to the legal heirship ought to have been adjudicated by the Tribunal by framing an issue. But, on the other hand, the Tribunal, based on the memo filed by the 7th respondent stating that he has not insisted the claim of compensation and also prayed to eschew his evidence, evaded to decide the issue with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that when sufficient document was available before the Court, namely, the ration card Ex.R-1, the Tribunal ought to have framed an issue as to whether respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha or not though no evidence was produced on the side of the appellant insurance company. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is the contention of respondents 1 to 5/claimants that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. Per contra, it is the contention of the appellant insurance company that the 7th respondent is the husband of the deceased and one Renuka Devi is the wife of the 1st respondent and respondent 2 to 5 are born to them. Moreover, it has been stated in the counter statement filed by the insurance company that though originally the legal heir certificate was issued in favour of respondents 1 to 5 by the Tahsildar, Walaja, subsequently the same was canceled. Moreover, it has been stated in the counter statement filed by the insurance company that though originally the legal heir certificate was issued in favour of respondents 1 to 5 by the Tahsildar, Walaja, subsequently the same was canceled. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, on the side of the appellant insurance company, no evidence was adduced with regard to the dispute raised by them. However, I find that the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R-1 marked on the side of the 7th respondent would create a doubt with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have framed a specific issue as to whether respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased and decided the same. Hence, in my considered opinion, the issue has to be decided by the Tribunal before the disbursement of the amount awarded. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the claim of respondents 1 to 5 as to whether respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal are the legal heirs of the deceased Vasantha. The Tribunal is directed to frame an issue and decide the same, by affording an opportunity to the parties concerned in order to adduced evidence both oral and documentary and complete the process, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.