Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) These two appeals involve identical questions of facts and law, and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the appellants impugning judgment and order dated 9.7.2001 passed by Sri Jaiveer Singh, XIV Additional District Judge in Motor Accident Claim No. 454 of 1999, (Ram Autar v. Chairman, Delhi Transport Corporation and M/s. Jai Shiv Shanker Tourist Bus Service, Purana Adda (Bus Stand) Ghaziabad.
(3.) Earlier judgment holding the driver of both the vehicles negligent could not have been given a go bye by the Tribunal in subsequent judgment ignoring the earlier view taken by same Tribunal just because Presiding Officer for the different purpose. Hon'ble the Privy Council in its decision rendered in the case of Syed Mohammad Saddat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg, AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 has observed as under : "In order that a decision should operate as res judicata between co-defendants, three conditions must exist : (1) There must be a conflict of interest between those co-defendants, (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the co-defendants must have been finally decided.";