D.I. Narayana Swamy rep. by his PA Holder the Second Appellant and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and A. Murugaperumal

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—A maxi cab belonging to the petitioner No. 1 in MVC No. 602/1997 is damaged in collusion with the offending lorry. The petitioner No. 2 is the insurer of the maxi cab. The respondent No. 1 in the petition is the insurer of the lorry. The petitioner No. 1 had filed petition initially seeking compensation. The insurer reimbursed the damage to his insured and made an application by impleading as petitioner No. 2 to come on record so as to enforce the right of subrogation against the offending vehicle. The Tribunal granted the request and the insurer came to be impleaded as the petitioner No. 2. The Tribunal however, subsequently dismissed the petition on the ground that the damage caused to the petitioner No. 1 is reimbursed by his insurer-petitioner No. 2 and therefore, the duplicated claim against respondents 1 and 2 does not lie for the same cause of action. Both the petitioners are in appeal challenging the order.

The petitioner No. 1 is entitled to maintain a claim for compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short ''Act'') . But the petitioner No. 1 has already been reimbursed by his insurer. Hence, the Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that the claim against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle on the same cause amounts to duplicated claim and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

The grievance of the second appellant herein that it has right of subrogation and therefore, entitled to recover from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle and therefore/ the dismissal is bad is an untenable contention. The second appellant may have right of subrogation/ but the forum is different. The claim to enforce subrogation rights is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 166 of the Act. Hence, the appellant No. 2 has to work out his remedy before the competent forum and not before the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal dismissed. The amount in deposit to be refunded.