JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed against the dismissal of claim petition filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.591 of 2009, dated 12.09.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.591 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Krishnagiri. He filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 07.11.2007.

3. According to the appellant, on the date of accident i.e., on

07.11.2007, the appellant was travelling in a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TU-0628 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent, on NH 5 road at Sarvaipalem Cross Road, Kavali Mandal-Kavali Rural P.S.jurisdiction, Nellore District, at that time a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-29-T-8499 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the Traffic Rules, dashed against the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to the said impact, the appellant suffered grievous injuries, resulted in amputatiton of left hand.

4. The first respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle and the third respondent in whose vehicle, the petitioner travelled were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent/ insurer of the first respondent filed counter statement, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and and stated that the accident did not happen due to the act of the driver belonging to the first respondent. In any event, the compensation claimed by the appellant was excessive and he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The fourth respondent/insurer of the third respondent had filed the counter stating that they are only added as a formal parties. He further contended that the driver of the first respondent, drove the vehicle in negligent manner and hit rear side of the lorry which resulted in accident causing injuries to the claimant and prayed that the above petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as against them.

7. Before the claims Tribunal, appellant examined hasP.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked eight documents as Exs.A.1 to A.8. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and two documents were marked as exhibits Exs.B.1 to B.4.

8. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.09.2012, has held that, the claimant had filed another claim petition before the Additional District Judge - I, Nellore District and dual claims are not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the above claim petition this appeal has been preferred.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance company filed counter and contended that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle drove the same in a cautious manner by observing the Traffic Rules. The driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TU-0628 belongs to the third respondent, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the lorry of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the third respondent driver, hence, the first respondent and second respondent are not liable to pay the compensation.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/Insurance company filed counter and contended that the driver of the first respondent was alone responsible for the accident and he drove the vehicle in negligent manner and hit rear side of the lorry which resulted in accident causing injuries to the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that lorry driver of the third respondent was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and hence, the fourth respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and also dis