JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioners/appellants herein are the dependents and successors-in-interest of one Diwan Chand, who purportedly during the course of performance of his employment as a driver under respondent No.1 in motor vehicle bearing No. HP-07-3474 suffered his end in a motor vehicle accident involving the aforesaid vehicle. 2. The apposite claim petition constituted by the appellants herein before the learned Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act suffered dismissal. The learned Commissioner recorded disaffirmative findings on the issue qua the deceased at the relevant time performing employment as a driver under respondent No.1 in the vehicle aforesaid also it recorded disaffirmative findings qua the appellants herein qua his suffering his demise during the course of his performing employment under respondent No.1 in the ill-fated vehicle. 3. The appellants herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Commissioner hence concert to assail it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 4. When the appeal came up for admission on 18.11.2014, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted here before by the appellant against the order of the learned Commissioner, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the learned Court below is perverse on the ground that the deceased does not fall within the definition of the workman who despite the admitted fact of respondent No.1 is admittedly recruited as driver in connection with a motor vehicle? 2. Whether the courts below have misconstrued the pleadings as well as the evidences/documents produced by the appellants, in which it was proved that the deceased was died on 10.08.2005 during the course of his employment? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner has acted in violation of the provisions of the law contained under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3. 5. The disaffirmative finding recorded by the learned Commissioner on the issue qua the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein standing engaged by respondent No.1 as a driver in the relevant vehicle, apparently stands not founded on a wholesome appreciation of the relevant evidence on record, significantly, of the recitals embodied in Ex.RW1/A, comprising an affidavit tendered by the owner of the ill-fated vehicle during the course of his examination-in-chief where within a loud communication stands echoed qua his engaging deceased Diwan Chand as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle. The aforesaid pronouncement occurring in Ex.RW1/A does clinch the factum of deceased Diwan Chand standing engaged by the owner of the ill-fated vehicle as its driver thereon whereupon the relevant issue No.1 warrants its standing answered affirmatively vis-a-vis the appellants. Moreover, with a candid pronouncement occurring in Ex. RW1/A qua also at the relevant time deceased Diwan Chand standing borne on the ill-fated vehicle as its driver does nurse a firm conclusion from this Court qua his demise occurring during the course of his performing employment as a driver under respondent No.1 in the ill-fated vehicle. 6. Be that as it may, the occurrence on record of the apposite FIR comprised in Ex.PW1/B lodged with the police station concerned besides with the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 while holding respondent No.1 to cross-examination purveying suggestions to him qua in FAO's arising here before against the apposite renditions recorded by the MACT concerned upon the claim petitions preferred there before, stirring a verdict here from qua the liability qua compensation amount assessed qua the dependents of the deceased/occupants of the ill-fated vehicle standing fastened upon the owner whereto an affirmative elicitation stood purveyed by RW-1, does constrain a conclusion of the ill-fated vehicle whereon thereat the deceased evidently was performing employment as its driver under respondent No.1 rolling into the gushing waters of river Satluj whereupon the demise of its occupants also of its driver occurred. The erection of the aforesaid inference by this Court does oust the formidability of the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua in the absence of production of the death certificate of deceased Diwan Chand by the appellants herein thereupon a conclusion standing warranted qua there being abysmal lack of evidence in portrayal of his suffering his demise in an accident involving the ill-fated vehicle. 7. Be that as it may, the relevant accident occurred in the year 2005, whereas, the apposite petition stood preferred before the learned Commissioner as evident from a disclosure made in the impugned rendition belatedly on 21.01.2012 wherefrom the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend qua their occurring a manifest inordinate unexplained delay in the institution of the apposite petition before the learned Commissioner. Conspicuously, with the apposite delay occurring beyond the apposite statutorily mandated period of two years, prescribed in Section 10(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) also with the appellants not within the ambit of the relevant proviso purveying a tenable sound explanation in explication of the apposite delay renders the claim petition to suffer the ill-fate of its standing dismissed given its standing filed beyond the period of limitation. However, the submission addressed here before by the learned counsel for the respondents holds no tenacity as they proceed to make the aforesaid submission qua the facet aforesaid only on anvil of a reflection occurring in the impugned award qua the apposite petition standing instituted there before by the appellants herein on 21.01.2012, whereas, a perusal of the original claim petition preferred by the appellants before the learned Commissioner unravels qua its presentation occurring only within 50 days elapsing from the date of accident, whereupon its standing preferred there before within the statutorily mandated period of two years, rendered it to stand preferred thereat within limitation. 8. Be that as it may, before proceeding to adjudicate qua the appellants a just and fair compensation amount, it is imperative to determine from the relevant record qua the claimants not simultaneously along with the apposite petition laid hereat instituting before the MACT concerned a petition claiming compensation arising out of the demise of their predecessor-in-interest Diwan Chand in a motor vehicle accident involving the ill-fated vehicle whereon he stood engaged as a driver under respondent No.1, especially when the appellants herein enjoy the statutory leverage to claim compensation either under the Employee's Compensation Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, obviously not under both. 9. The relevant evidence for resting the aforesaid factum stand embodied in the testification occurring in the cross-examination of Devi Dass, the father of deceased Diwan Chand, wherein, he acquiesces to a suggestion put to him by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents while holding him to cross-examination qua his preferring a claim petition before the MACT concerned along with the co-appellants on occurrence of demise of their predecessor-in-interest Diwan Chand in the ill-fated accident involving the relevant vehicle, petition whereof he echoes therein to suffer the ill-fate of its dismissal. The aforesaid proclamation occurring in the cross-examination of co-appellant No.1 does beget an inference of his simultaneously alongwith the preferment of the apposite petition laid hereat, filing a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT concerned wherefrom with his simultaneously prosecuting remedies under two compatible statutes whereas he stood enjoined to either avail his remedy under the Employee's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, renders the claim petition laid hereat to warrant it standing dismissed. Also it appears qua despite theirs preferring a claim petition before the MACT concerned in sequel to occurrence of demise of their predecessor-in-interest Diwan Chand theirs yet proceeding to canvass a relief similar to the one which stood canvassed in the aforesaid claim petition thereupon their extant endeavour warrants its standing negated conspicuously to obviate any belittling of conclusivity acquired by the previous rendition pronounced upon their apposite petition laid before the MACT concerned for a purpose akin to the one which stands embodied in the apposite petition laid hereat. Reiteratedly, for blunting the aforesaid eventuality also when the instant claim petition attracts the principle of res judicata besides with the operation of a statutory bar against conjoint relief under compatible statutes being unavailable, conspicuously, when an earlier pronouncement upon the apposite claim petition of the appellants herein has acquired conclusivity also when it was inter se akin litigants thereat vis-a-vis the litigants hereat, verdict pronounced thereon obviously holds an aura of reverence, whereupon, other Courts stand barred to adjudicate any compensation qua the appellants arising out of the demise of their predecessor-in-interest in the ill-fated accident. 10. The effect of the aforesaid diktat formed by this Court for declining vis-a-vis the appellants herein quantification of compensation under the Act would not oust the operation of the statutory mandatory provisions of Section 4A(3) of the Employee's Workman Compensation Act, which stand extracted hereinafter:- “4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:- (1). Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2). Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:- (1). Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2). In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per recent of such amount by way of penalty; The imminent reason for this Court erecting the aforesaid inference is dehors the factum of conclusivity acquired by the rendition recorded by the MACT concerned upon the claim petition preferred there before by the co-appellants also dehors qua thereupon the instant petition while obviously attracting the principle of res judicata it forestalling the appellants herein to canvass here before the relief which stood previously unsuccessfully canvassed by them. Nonetheless, with none of the statutory provisions engrafted in the Motor Vehicles Act holding any postulation therein akin to the one postulated in Section 10(a) of the Act, renders the relevant statutory expostulation embodied in Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act to warrant deference standing meted thereon, visibly, with this Court recording affirmative findings vis-a-vis the appellants herein on the relevant issues Nos.1 and 2 also visibly with respondent No.1 not revering the statutory mandate of sub Section (1) of Section 4 thereupon this Court is enjoined to impose upon the employer of deceased Diwan Chand statutory penalty quantified in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) arising from of his demise occurring during the course of his performing employment under him in the relevant vehicle, dehors no compensation amount being assessable qua the appellants herein especially when the rigor of the relevant mandate occurring therein is inflexible besides when the instant petition has suffered dismissal merely on the ground of estoppel besides on anvil of res judicata whereupon this Court does not deem it unbefitting to compute in the aforesaid amount penalty payable vis-à-vis the appellants herein besides deems it also just to fasten the liability qua its defrayment to the appellants herein upon the employer, who merely on the principle of res judicata has escaped his relevant liability qua defrayment of compensation amount vis-a-vis the appellants herein. 11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed. In sequel, the award rendered by the learned Commissioner is modified to the extent that the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 is held liable to pay penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only), to the appellants herein. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.