JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - The appeal is against the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments that on 19.4.2006, the deceased Katik Mohd. along with others were traveling in a Mohindra pick-up van returning from village Lakkar to village Buria, after attending the marriage of one Arvind Kumar. The accident is said to have taken place when a truck coming from the opposite direction dashed against the truck in which the deceased was traveling that resulted in death of one of the passengers in the bus, named, Katik Mohd. That driver incidentally also happened to be the owner of the truck and appears to have been proceeded against for negligence driving of the truck. The petition has been dismissed on the ground that the claimant’s income was more than Rs.40,000/-. 2. In my view, the dismissal of the petition was clearly erroneous. I have seen through the petition. The claimants are the parents of Katik Mohd., who was 20 years of age and was said to be a computer operator with Satish Kumar, proprietor of Bittu Kamboj Bhuria. The driver of the Mohindra pick-up van has been proceeded with and if it is admitted fact that the deceased was traveling a motor vehicle and the death had also been on account of the accident involving a motor vehicle. The petition was perfectly maintainable. A defence of the deceased being a gratuitous passenger or unauthorized passenger cannot avail to the 1st respondent who himself is driver as well as the owner. Having allowed a passenger in the truck, he is bound to take a consequence for the result of the accident. The plea of non-liability on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger cannot, therefore, arise. 3. Another line of defence was that the claimants had earlier filed a petition No. 120 of 2006, but it was dismissed as withdrawn. The defence was, therefore, in terms of Rule 220 of the Haryana Motor Vehicle Rules 1993, the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would apply for withdrawal of the petition. Consequently, withdrawal of petition without seeking for permission will bar a fresh petition. I would reject this contention, since, if a petition were filed under Section 166 and it is withdrawn, a fresh petition under the very same provision could be a bar. Consequently, withdrawal of petition without seeking for permission will bar a fresh petition. I would reject this contention, since, if a petition were filed under Section 166 and it is withdrawn, a fresh petition under the very same provision could be a bar. If, on the other hand, the petition is filed under Section 166 where proof of negligence would have been necessary, there could be no bar to a petition under Section 163-A which dispenses with proof of negligence and allow for determining compensation on the structured formula mentioned in Schedule II. 4. The counsel for the respondents points out to me that this issue was brought in different way in the Dasmesh Bus Service (Regd.) Raikot, District Ludhiana Versus Smt. Jagir Kaur and others 1986 (1) PLR 281 In that case, at the first instance, a petition had been filed under the Motor Vehicle Act and thereafter fresh petition was filed under the Workman’s Compensation Act. Referring to the relevant rules and the applicability of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, the Division Bench held that withdrawal of the petition under one Act cannot bar filing a fresh petition under a distinct provision of another enactment. The argument was that if it is under the same Act, such a petition would be barred. The Division Bench was not considering the case of disposal of an application under Section 166 as withdrawn and fresh application being filed under Section 163-A, as it is done now. Indeed Section 163-A itself was not in the statute book at the time when the Division Bench was delivering the judgment. It had no occasion, therefore, to refer to the distinct scheme of compensation under Section 163-A. So long as the involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute and so long as no award had been passed on merits, either providing for compensation or rejecting it, a fresh petition under Section 163-A cannot be said to be barred. Operation of Order 23 arises only to abandonment of a petition for compensation under particular provision and a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The compensation under Section 166 and compensation under Section 163-A operate in distinct fields. While compensation secured under one provision will bar a petition again under another provision, a compensation claim which was not prosecuted under one shall not bar a fresh petition. The compensation under Section 166 and compensation under Section 163-A operate in distinct fields. While compensation secured under one provision will bar a petition again under another provision, a compensation claim which was not prosecuted under one shall not bar a fresh petition. It must be remembered that the relevant provision under the Motor Vehicle Act providing for compensation is in a piece of welfare legislation and denial of right cannot be easily presumed a technical bar of prosecuting a petition must be strictly construed. 5. The petition was properly laid and considering the fact that the claimants were parents and were making a claim for compensation for death of their son, I will apply the scales as laid down under Schedule II and for a boy who was aged 20 years, having annual income of Rs.36,000/-, I shall award compensation payable Rs.6,84,000/- and also an additional amount of Rs.4,500 for the funeral expenses and lost to estate respectively. The liability shall be on the 1st respondent only. The right of enforcement cannot avail against the insurance company since the deceased admittedly was a gratuitous passenger for whom there could be no statutory risk coverage. The judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ------------------