JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the non-claimant proforma-respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act from the judgment and award dated 20.05.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 137 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The claimant-respondent’s claim arises from the accident that had taken place on 14.06.2009 at about 8.10 a.m., when Abdul Ajij [now deceased] father of the respondents No.1 and 2 was proceeding towards his house on foot, at Khayerpur on Assam Agartala Road, the vehicle bearing No.TR01D1113 (Maruti Ambulance) being driven rashly and negligently knocked Abdul Ajij down. As a result, Abdul Ajij sustained severe injuries on his person and he succumbed to his injuries on 16.06.2009 in the hospital. According to the claimant-respondents, his income was Rs.3000/- as the Imam of a mosque at Dalura. 4. The claim petition was filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act for getting compensation for no fault liability. The claim has been decided in terms of the 2nd schedule [under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act] appended to the said Act. A sum of Rs.1,24,500/- has been awarded as compensation. 5. There is no dispute in this regard, but Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the respondent No.2 had earlier filed one claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said claim petition being TS (MAC) No.393 of 2009 was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 20.05.2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala holding that the claimant-appellant failed to prove the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle, rather it has been established that the accident occurred due to fault of the deceased. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that in the earlier claim petition, income of the deceased was shown as Rs.3,500/- from vegetable cultivation whereas in the present claim petition his income has been shown as Rs.3,000/- from the Imamship of a mosque. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that in the earlier claim petition, income of the deceased was shown as Rs.3,500/- from vegetable cultivation whereas in the present claim petition his income has been shown as Rs.3,000/- from the Imamship of a mosque. He has therefore contended that the mischief has been played by reducing the income just to bring the claim under the framework of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. That apart, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel relying on a decision of the apex court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 has submitted that when one claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is dismissed, no claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act can be maintained. He has further submitted that where the victim died or suffered disability of a road traffic accident, the claim can be brought under no fault liability under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act but in that case, the annual income of the victim shall be below Rs.40,000/- per annum. With the proposition of Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda (supra) there is no quarrel. 7. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has counteracted by contending that the respondent No.1 was not a party in the earlier proceeding nor was he given any notice of the said proceeding, and as such any claim in respect of the income of the deceased or any decision of the tribunal in the earlier proceeding cannot prevent, prohibit or bind the respondent No.1 from filing a claim petition under Section 163 A of the said Act. His right cannot be eclipsed. In this regard, even no plea has been raised by the appellants in the tribunal. In the premises, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the judgment and order dated 20.05.2011 delivered in TS (MAC) No.393 of 2009 [the earlier decision] cannot bind the claimant-respondent No.1 for any purpose since he was not a party in the previous proceeding. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the judgment and order dated 20.05.2011 delivered in TS (MAC) No.393 of 2009 [the earlier decision] cannot bind the claimant-respondent No.1 for any purpose since he was not a party in the previous proceeding. It appears further that if the two claim petitions one filed by the claimant-respondent No.1 and another by the proforma-respondent No.2 are compared some serious discrepancies would be found, but the case that has been filed by the claimant-respondent No.1 cannot be hit therefor under any principle of law for the previous decision. 9. Having observed thus, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award dated 20.05.2011 and accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.