SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) INSURANCE company has felt aggrieved by two orders passed by the learned Member of Tribunal and has accordingly questioned their legality by filing this one appeal under section 173 of motor Vehicles Act. The impugned orders are dated 4. 8. 1997 and 3. 9. 1997, passed by 2nd M. A. C. T. , Indore, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1997. In order to appreciate the entire factual controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the claimant. She is widow of one Dinesh Joshi who died in an accident that occurred on 14. 10. 1995 while driving truck bearing No. MP 09-D 7479 near Korba. The respondent No. 1, widow, then on 8. 4. 1996 made an application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles act before 2nd M. A. C. T. , Indore, out of which this appeal arises claiming compensation for the death of her husband. The owner of truck as also the insurance company, appellant herein were arrayed as non-applicants. The respondent No. 1, i. e. , claimant also made an application under section 140 ibid for claiming the interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability. ( 3 ) THE insurance company alone contested the application by filing reply to main application as also reply to interim application. The claim was denied on several grounds, such as truck in question was not insured with them, that accident was not due to any negligence on the part of owner, that driver had no valid licence, etc. As stated above, other non-applicants remained ex parte. ( 4 ) BY impugned award dated 4. 8. 1997 the learned Member of M. A. C. T. allowed the application made by claimant under section 140 ibid and passed an interim award of Rs. 50,000 jointly against all the non-applicants. On 3. 9. 1997 the claimant, however, made a prayer by making an application to allow her to withdraw the claim petition. The Tribunal allowed this application and dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn. The insurance company has felt aggrieved of these orders, namely, interim award dated 4. 8. 1997 and order dated 3. 9. 1997 permitting claimant to with draw the claim petition and has filed this one appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. The Tribunal allowed this application and dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn. The insurance company has felt aggrieved of these orders, namely, interim award dated 4. 8. 1997 and order dated 3. 9. 1997 permitting claimant to with draw the claim petition and has filed this one appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant (insurance company)and none for the respondents, though served. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of case, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal must fail. ( 7 ) ON 2. 2. 1998, this court admitted the appeal only insofar as it relates to challenge to an award dated 4. 8. 1997. In other words, the appeal challenging the order dated 3. 9. 1997 was given up. So the only question that remains for consideration in this appeal is whether interim award dated 4. 8. 1997 passed by 2nd M. A. C. T. , Indore, is legal and proper? In compliance to proviso to section 173 ibid, the appellant claimed to have deposited the requisite amount. Accepting this statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the appellant on 2. 2. 1998 this court admitted the appeal and stayed the execution of the interim award. ( 8 ) THE challenge to impugned award by learned counsel for appellant was mainly on the ground that one Neelkant and madanlal claiming to be the brothers of deceased Dinesh had filed one claim petition being Claim Case No. 52 of 1996 in the court of 1st M. A. C. T. , Badwani, claiming compensation for the death of their brother Dinesh arising out of the accident that occurred on 14. 10. 1995. It was urged that in this claim petition widow of deceased, i. e. , Tarabai, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal was not arrayed as a party either as a claimant or even as respondent as required by proviso to section 166 ibid. It was urged that this application was contested by the present appellant, i. e. , insurance company as one of the non-applicants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was pointed out that the learned Member of 1st m. A. C. T. , Badwani, by its order dated 14. 10. It was urged that this application was contested by the present appellant, i. e. , insurance company as one of the non-applicants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was pointed out that the learned Member of 1st m. A. C. T. , Badwani, by its order dated 14. 10. 1996 upheld the objection raised by the insurance company and held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. Accordingly, the application was rejected by answering the preliminary issues in favour of the non-applicant and against the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant on this basis complained that the present claim petition filed by widow in Indore court out of which this appeal arises is not maintainable, it is barred. Consequently, the passing of interim award is rendered without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. Firstly, this objection was not taken by the appellant in the court below. Nothing prevented the appellant to raise this objection in their reply while opposing the main claim petition as also the application for interim compensation. If this objection had been raised at a proper place and in the same way as it is taken for the first time in this appeal then in that event the claimant widow would have got adequate opportunity to meet with the said objection and secondly, the learned trial Judge would have been able to give its finding dealing with the said objection. It is not a case where insurance company was not aware of any such order having been passed in their favour by some court. They were fully aware of earlier proceedings. No fault can, therefore, be found in the impugned interim award passed by Tribunal in section 140 proceedings as it is based on all facts necessary for passing the award. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the impugned award rendered by the learned Tribunal which was based perfectly keeping into consideration the objective falling in under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in awarding compensation on the principle of no fault liability. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the impugned award rendered by the learned Tribunal which was based perfectly keeping into consideration the objective falling in under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in awarding compensation on the principle of no fault liability. As observed supra the only point that was urged was the one which was in relation to the question of maintainability of this application on the basis of the order passed by the Badwani court for the first time in this appeal. I have already repealed this submission which was more technical and had no substance. Even otherwise and to avoid any technicality in deciding the appeal, I applied my mind to the argument it being the only argument urged. In my opinion the argument has no substance. The Badwani court did not decide any issue on merit of the case. It only rejected the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the claim of legal representatives whether filed by brother of deceased or anybody was not tried on merits. In order to nonsuit the claimant of subsequent application, it has to be shown that earlier application was tried on merits by court of competent jurisdiction. Once the court finds may be on any ground that it does not have jurisdiction, there can be no trial on the merit of the controversy. It is clear as observed supra the earlier court simply rejected the claim petition holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petition. In fact, it appears that the learned Judge framed a preliminary issue no. 2 on the point of jurisdiction and dismissed the application by upholding the said objection of non-applicant. This in my opinion is sufficient to reject this argument. ( 11 ) IN my opinion, the present claim petition is filed by a real and proper legal representative of the deceased, i. e. , widow who alone was entitled to claim the compensation for the death of her husband. In my opinion, when the widow of deceased is alive, the brothers of deceased had no right to become legal representatives and claim compensation for the death of their brother. This action of the brothers was apparently to deprive the widow of her legitimate claim. In my opinion, when the widow of deceased is alive, the brothers of deceased had no right to become legal representatives and claim compensation for the death of their brother. This action of the brothers was apparently to deprive the widow of her legitimate claim. ( 12 ) IT is really a matter of concern that real claimant of deceased is still deprived of a fixed compensation which is payable to her in the light of section 140 of the Act. It is now more than 5 years that she has not been paid any amount. ( 13 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence the interim stay dated 2. 2. 1998 stands vacated. The trial court is directed to disburse the interim compensation to the claimant, i. e. , widow of deceased. If necessary, notice be sent to her by the trial court to collect the compensation amount deposited by insurance company in court in compliance to impugned award. Appeal dismissed. .