When a claim petition is dismissed or allowed on merits, it would bar filing of a fresh claim petition on the same cause of action.

Sneh Prashar, J.

Assailing the award dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT No.23 dated 16.11.2011, the appellant-insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident filed the instant appeal.

2. The short ground on which the award has been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the claim petition No.23 dated 16.11.2011 filed by the claimant-respondent No.1- Naveen Kumar Garg was not maintainable as he had earlier filed a claim petition with regard to the same cause of action i.e. relating to the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident that took place on 18.1.2010, which was allowed by learned Tribunal and compensation was awarded. As a result thereof, the second petition filed by the claimant was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 11 read with Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code').

3. The submissions made by Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate representing the appellant and Mr. JK Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1- claimant have been heard and record perused.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the first claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') by claimant Naveen Kumar Garg, learned Tribunal granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,44,064/-. The said amount was paid to him by the appellant- Insurance Company and no appeal was preferred by the claimant impugning the award by either of the parties. The award passed by learned Tribunal had become final and therefore, the second claim petition on the same cause of action filed by the claimant -respondent No.1 was not maintainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (1998) 4 SCC 361, Ramjan Ali and another v. Sunil Kumar and another, 2016 ACJ 833 and Suresh Devi and others v. Jasbir Singh and others 2015 ACJ 1283.

5. Refuting the above arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 submitted with vehemence that principle of res-judicata as defined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is not strictly applicable to a claim petition filed under the Act of 1988. Otherwise also, it is a benevolence legislation, therefore, technical provisions of the Code are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal.

6. Admittedly, claimant Naveen Kumar Garg met with a road side accident on 18.1.2010. His allegation was that his motorcycle was hit by a car bearing registration No. CH-03A-9513 (for short 'the offending car'), which came from his back side and was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed and as a result thereof, he sustained multiple grievous injuries on various parts of the body. A First Information Report no.16 dated 19.1.2010 under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in respect of the accident at Police Station City Sangrur. Invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Act of 1988, Naveen Kumar Garg filed a petition bearing MACT No.8 of 10.3.2010 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, which was decided on 21.10.2011 and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,44,064/- alongwith interest was awarded to him, which as stated by the appellant- Insurance Company was paid to him and none of the parties filed an appeal assailing the award.

7. Subsequently, the claimant filed another claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 on 16.11.2011. Respondents No.2 & 3 herein and the appellant- insurer (on having been impleaded as respondent No.3 in the petition) contested the petition raising all defences available to them under the Act of 1988. The appellant tendered in evidence copy of the award dated 21.2.2011 Ex.C-72 passed in earlier claim petition filed by claimant-Naveen Kumar Garg.

8. Learned Tribunal during discussion under issue No.1 noticed in para 11