JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is at the instance of the New India Assurance Company Limited and is directed against the award dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 1436 of 2000 thereby disposing of the said application by awarding a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. 2. Being dissatisfied, the appellant who is insurer of one of the vehicles involved has come up with the present appeal. 3. It appears that in collision between the two vehicles viz. the jeep in question and the bus owned by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (G.S.R.T.C.), the victim died. The claimants prayed for compensation by making the owner of the jeep as well as the insurer of the jeep and the G.S.R.T.C. as parties. 4. The Tribunal below was of the view that in the accident, there was 90% negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep while the driver of the G.S.R.T.C. bus had negligence to the extent of 10%. However, while awarding the compensation, all the parties were directed to pay jointly and severally. 5. Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. According to Mr. Thakkar, the jeep in question being a private vehicle and no separate premium having been paid for the occupants of the vehicle, his client had no liability to pay the amount of compensation for the occupants of the vehicle. 6. It however, appears that out of the selfsame accident, in the past the claimants had filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal below by order dated 04th July, 2003 disposed of the application by allowing the same with the direction upon all the opponents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 7. It appears that the insurance company has accepted said award and has not challenged the same. Such being the position, in my opinion, the aforesaid issue as to the liability of the insurance company is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. 8. 7. It appears that the insurance company has accepted said award and has not challenged the same. Such being the position, in my opinion, the aforesaid issue as to the liability of the insurance company is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. 8. It is now settled by the Apex Court that an award under section 140 of the Act is an appealable one (See Yallwwa v. National Insurance Company, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2582 ) and therefore, the parties, by not preferring any appeal, has accepted the position that the vehicle was involved in the accident, that there was no breach of any condition of insurance in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and that the same was insured by the concerned Insurance Company. Those three facts cannot be reopened in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act either at the instance of the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. At this stage it will be profitable to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others v. Smt. Deorjin Debi And Another reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 where a Bench consisting of three Judges specifically held that even if Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in a judicial proceeding, the principles of res judicata is nevertheless applicable: "The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation, When a matter - whether on a question of fact or a question of law - has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where S. 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where S. 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct." (Emphasis supplied) 9. I, thus, find that the only question raised by Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company is devoid of any merit and consequently, this appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 10. Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate as a last resort also tried to impress upon me that having regard to the size of the two vehicles, the Tribunal ought to have held that the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep cannot exceed 40%. 11. In my opinion the aforesaid contention is also devoid of any merit inasmuch as the negligence in the accident does not depend upon the size of the vehicle. In this case, the Tribunal below on materials on record has specifically arrived at a conclusion that it was the driver of the jeep concerned who was driving the vehicle negligently and as such was found to be 90% negligent. I do not propose to disturb such finding of fact based on the evidence on record. Thus, the additional point advanced by Mr. Thakkar is of no avail to his client. 12. It appears that after admission of this appeal, the appellant deposited entire amount of awarded sum and part thereof were permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. Now that this appeal is dismissed, the Tribunal is directed to release the balance amount with interest accrued thereon, in favour of the claimants. Appeal Dismissed.