Devi Prasad Singh and Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) INSTANT appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the impugned award dated 18.8.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 228 of 2001 (Smt. Deepkali v. U.P.S.R.T.C.). The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 13.2.1993 at about 11.30 p.m. an accident took place near Sidhauli, Police Station Ataria, District Sitapur. The respondents' husband late Sri Jagdish Singh was travel ling in a Roadways Bus No. U.P.-53-B/4998. On account of rash and negligent driving of the bus, the accident took place with a truck resulting in serious in juries caused to the deceased. On account of serious injuries, the deceased suc cumbed at later stage. In the said accident, the co-driver and five other persons died. After death of the deceased, the claimant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a petition preferring claim for Rs. 11, 63, 000/-before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 49, 500/- separately apart from other expenses. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award the appellants approached to this Court preferring the instant appeal. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the claimant had earlier filed a petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, which was registered as Case No. 54 of 1993. The petition filed at Lucknow was dis missed in default and the Court concerned did not restore the same. Thereafter, the claimant filed another petition at Faizabad in the Court concerned. While filing the petition at Faizabad, the claimant took the defence that since the claim petition filed at Lucknow was dismissed in default without adjudicating the controversy on merit. It was very well maintainable. While assailing the impugned award, Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants tried to assail the impugned award with the averment that the claimant had concealed the material fact with regard to the petition filed at Lucknow. Filing of another petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and is not sustainable.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the petition filed at Lucknow was dismissed in default, the Tribunal at Faizabad had very well acted in jurisdiction while adjudicating the contro versy on merit. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Gobinda Daiv and others v. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, AIR 1971SC 664. We have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.;