The second respondent insurer in O.P. (MV) No.1123/1995 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is the appellant. Insurer has file this appeal challenging an award passed by the Tribunal by which it had awarded an amount of Rs.33,718/-as compensation to the first respondent/claimant for the damages sustained to his motor car bearing registration No.K.L-5/A 3183. A collision took place between the car owned by the first respondent and a jeep bearing registration No.KEK 1933. On 16.2.1993 the car was proceeding towards south through Pala-Ponkunnam road. According to the first respondent the jeep bearing registration No.KEK 1933 was parked on the eastern side of the road. The driver of the jeep abruptly started it and turned to the west in a rash or negligent manner, which abused collision of car with the jeep. The first respondent filed the Original Petition initially claiming an amount of Rs.8,545/- as compensation alleging that car sustained substantial damages due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep.

2. The second respondent/owner of the jeep filed a written statement contending that the petition was not maintainable. It was contended that the first respondent received an amount of Rs.42,032/-as full and final settlement for the damages sustained to his car from the third respondent who was the insurer of car. Since the first respondent was compensated by his own insurer he is not entitled to get any compensation again from the owner of the jeep. The averment that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent driver was denied. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent himself. It was also contended that jeep was covered with a valid policy of insurance issued by the appellant. The second was holding a valid driving licence and in case the claimant is entitled to get any compensation the appellant is liable to pay the same.

3. The appellant/second respondent insurer of jeep filed a written statement contending that the petition was not maintainable. It was contended that since the first respondent was compensated by his own insurer he was not entitled to get any compensation again for the very same damage from the owner of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself.

.4. Third respondent/insurer of the car filed a written statement contending that petition was not maintainable against it. It was admitted that the car was covered with a valid policy of insurance issued by it. Claim made by the insured was paid by it and hence it was not liable to pay any

.additional compensation.

5. Thefirst respondent gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A7 proved and marked. On the side of respondents Ext.B1 copy of insurance policy in respect of jeep was marked.

6. In the Original Petition the petitioner calculated the damages sustained to the car on account of the accident at Rs.50,577/-. But initially the claim was limited o Rs.8.545/-. It was admitted that the vehicle was covered with a policy of insurance issued by the third respondent and the third respondent had paid an amount of Rs.42,032/-as repair charges for the damages sustained to the vehicle. It was further averred that hence respondent No.2 and appellant were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,545/-. Subsequently petitioner filed I.A.No.562/1999 by which the compensation claimed was enhanced to Rs.50,577/-. The averment in the Original Petition that the first respondent had received Rs.42,032/-from his insurer was deleted. To the amended original Petition the appellant filed additional written statement contending that the third respondent paid an amount of Rs.42,032/- to the first respondent as full and final settlement for the alleged damages caused to the motor car and hence he was not entitled to get any compensation again from the appellant. It was further contended that the first respondent