These two appeals were heard analogously as these appeals arise out of a common order by which the Tribunal disposed of two different proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of the selfsame accident.

2. By the orders impugned, the Tribunal held that opponent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, was liable to pay Rs.85,100/- to the claimant as compensation in MACP No.108 of 2002 with proportionate costs and running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim-petition till realisation. In the other matter being MACP No.109 of 2002, the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.28,000/- for the injury caused to the applicant.

3. However, the Tribunal below further held that in these cases it has been established from evidence on record that the victims were not carrying any goods owned by them while travelling in the goods' vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence. On such findings, the Tribunal further held that the Insurance company after making payment to the claimants will be free to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on filing regular suit.

4. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeals.

5. Mr.. Nanavati, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before me that after having found that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence and that the victims while travelling on the goods vehicle were not carrying any goods owned by them for which purpose they allegedly hired the vehicle, the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in directing the Insurance Company to make payment and thereafter to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. According to Mr.. Nanavati, such direction can be passed only by the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not vested with such power.

6. Mr. PJ Kanabar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the victim, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Nanavati and has contended that since the Tribunal has passed award in favour of his clients and they are not challenging the quantum of compensation in these appeals, his clients are nevertheless entitled to support the ultimate award by even challenging the finding of the Tribunal as regards want of valid driving licence and status of the claimants as gratuitous passengers. Mr. Kanabar contends that arising out of the selfsame accident, his clients also filed proceedings under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in that proceedings, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-, the statutory amount, in favour of his clients by directing the Insurance Company to make such payment. Mr. Kanabar contends that the Insurance Company having made such payment and not having challenged the decision under Section 140 of the Act by contending that it had no liability to pay the amount on the ground that the conditions of the insurance had not been fulfilled, these questions were no longer open before the Tribunal below in the subsequent proceedings under Section 166 of the Act. According to Mr. Kanabar, those two questions are concluded by the principles of constructive res judicata in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act and, therefore, I should set aside those two findings arrived at by the Tribunal against Mr. Kanabar's clients and should affirm the ultimate award.

7. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in these appeals is, whether in view of the fact that in the earlier proceedings under Section 140 of the Act arising out of the selfsame accident and between the same parties, the Insurance Company had suffered award which has attained finality, the question of liability to make payment on the ground of alleged violation of the terms of the policy can be re-agitated in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act.

8. After having heard the learned co