The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of a claim petition under one statute does not preclude the filing of a claim under another statute, and the delay in filing the claim petition can be condoned under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

M.C. Garg, J.:-

The appellant is aggrieved of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa, who has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition as filed by the appellants on the ground of res judicata and also on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial question of law for deciding this appeal i.e.: -

1. “Whether the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act committed substantial error of law in holding that the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding the application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to be not maintainable amounts to res judicata?

2. Whether in view of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the claim petition filed under Workmen's Compensation Act can be said to be barred by limitation? If so, whether the delay in view of section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act is liable to be condoned.

3. Whether the claim petition filed under Workmen's Compensation Act could be dismissed when the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred arising out of and during the course of employment?

4. Whether the claim petition filed by appellants before the Commissioner was barred under section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act?”

3. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to take note of some brief facts.

4. The appellants, who are parents of Late Ramesh Sen @ Lalla claimed: compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims tribunal with respect to the compensation to be awarded on account of the death of Late Ramesh Sen @ Lalla, who was aged about 19 years when he succumbed the fatal injuries, which were caused to him while driving Jeep No. MP 09 S 781 during the course of his employment with the owner of the said Jeep being the first respondent. The deceased was having a valid driving licence issued by the R.T.O., Rewa. The appellants being the parents were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased son, who was being paid the salary of Rs. 3,000 per month by the respondent No. 1. The accident took place on 9th December, 1996 at about 8.00 a.m. at National Highway No. 7 - Rewa-Mirzapur Road, when the Jeep being driven by Ramesh Sen dashed into a truck owned by the M.P. State Electricity Board.

5. The appellants then filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa but on the advice of the said Tribunal, filed a case before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The order giving such advice by the Tribunal is dated 30th October, 2002 and copy thereof is annexed with the present appeal as Annexure A-1.

6. The claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed on 19th November, 2002, however, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissed the claim petition on the ground of res judicata and being time barred vide order dated 10th February, 2004 (Annexure A-3). It is this order, which is being challenged in this appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the aim filed by the appellants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under section 166, Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable and in fact no such claim as decided on merits. It is, thus, submitted that the decision given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal earlier i.e. in 2002 would not constitute res judicata in this case and therefore, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has committed error in having dismissed the, claim filed before the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, filed by the' appellants under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

8. At this juncture it would be appropriate to take note of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the original petition was filed on behalf of the appellants and which was disposed of vide order dated 30th October, 2002, in Claim Case No. 130/2002, which was institut