Subsequent claim petitions are maintainable despite prior claims being rendered infructuous if not decided on merits, thus not barred by res judicata.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.202/2020 by which the claim petition submitted by the appellants-claimants (for short “the claimants”) has been rejected on the ground of res judicata.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants had submitted a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma in a road accident. However, the same has been rejected by the Tribunal on the technical ground that filing of the claim petition by the claimants amounts to res judicata since previously, a claim petition was also submitted by the injured Krishan Kant Sharma himself (who is now deceased) before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

3. Learned counsel submits that the deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma met with an accident on 09.11.2015, wherein he suffered certain injuries and thereafter, he submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal during his lifetime. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the said claim, the injured Krishan Kant Sharma expired. Since the legal representatives of Krishan Kant Sharma were not taken on record, hence, the injury claim submitted by Krishan Kant Sharma was rendered infructuous. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the claimants have submitted the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma before the Tribunal, but the same was rejected not on merits, but on a technical count that same is not maintainable, as it amounts to res judicata. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the earlier claim petition filed by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma himself, is decided on its merits on the basis of issues framed and on the basis of evidence led by both the sides, the subsequent case filed by his family members cannot be rejected on the technical count that the same amounts to res judicata.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.4665/2021 on 09.08.2021 and Pandurangan Vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. while deciding Civil Appeal No.7743/2025 on 14.07.2025 and the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of V. Anitha Gangadhara & Ors. Vs. S. Srirama Reddy & Anr. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8210

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that for the same incident, two different claim petitions cannot be submitted. Once the claim petition submitted by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma for his injuries has been rejected, then under such circumstances, the subsequent claim petition submitted by his claimants was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error by treating the subsequent claim petition as res judicata. Learned counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the Tribunal, which requires no interference of this Court and the instant appeal submitted by the claimant is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the