( 1 ) THIS Appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) THE first respondent-claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the daughter of one Meenakshi. On 17-1-1980, at about 7. 45 p. m. , while Meenakshi along with one Devaki was going along the Court Road, Udupi, an Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. MYX 7195 driven by the second respondent and owned by respondent No. 3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Meenakshi and Devaki. Meenakshi sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and later she succumbed to the injuries. An application for compensation was filed by the first respondent alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. Earlier to this application, one Devi Prasad Shetty, S/o the deceased Meenakshi, had filed an application for compensation on account of the death of his mother Meenakshi. After contest, the above application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 1-3-1984 which is produced as Ex. D. 12 in the case. It is alleged that the present claimant was not a party to this application. On various grounds, the claimant claimed compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle.

( 3 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company and other respondents before the Tribunal contested the application on various grounds. The main contentions taken by them were to the effect that the present application is barred by the principles of res judicata on account of the dismissal of the earlier application filed by Devi Prasad Shetty, S/o deceased Meenakshi. It was also contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of the autorickshaw (second respondent) had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident and that, in such an event, the policy clearly excludes the liability of the insurer and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not, in any way, liable. The claim was resisted on the ground that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

( 4 ) AFTER trial, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, overruled all the contentions of the driver, owner and the insurer and awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- with interest from the date of the application to the claimant payable by the respondents. The Insurance Company has come up in Appeal against the above order.

( 5 ) THE driver and the owner of the vehicle (respondents 2 and 3 in this Appeal) filed an Appeal as M. F. A. No. 1716/86 before this Court beyond the period of limitation. The above appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. But, while dismissing the appeal, in para 4 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows :"appellants are already party-respondents in M. F. A. No. 83/86 preferred by the insurer against the award. Learned Counsel says their appellants are entitled to be transposed as co-appellants in that appeal. It is open to appellants to seek such transposition. If and when such prayer is made, the same would be considered on its merits. "

( 6 ) BASED on the above observation, the driver and the owner (respondents 2 and 3) have filed an application I. A. III praying that they may be transposed of as co-appellants in this appeal. The claimant has also filed cross-objections challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and for enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

( 7 ) THE Appeal, cross-objections and the application for transportation came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. It was contended by the appellant that, in view of the dismissal of the earlier application filed by Devi Prasad Shetty, one of the legal representatives of the deceased Meenakshi, on merits, the present application filed by another legal representative on the same cause of action is barred by principles of res judicata. The earlier a