JUDGMENT
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Alleging that when he was travelling in a bus belonging to respondent No. 1 being driven by the respondent No. 2, the said bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 resulting in injuries and consequent permanent disability to him, appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter denying the accident and involvement of the appellant therein and putting the appellant to proof of all the allegations in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 remained ex parte.
2. In support of his case, the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked Exhs. A1 to A7. On its behalf, respondent No. 1 examined respondent No. 2 as RW-1 but did not adduce any documentary evidance. The Tribunal having held that since the earlier O.P. filed by appellant on the same cause of action was dismissed, this O.P. is not maintainable, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether the dismissal of the earlier O.P. filed is a bar for filing a fresh? O.P.
(2) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2?
(3) What compensation, if any, is the appellant entitled to?
Point No. 1:
4. On the ground that another O.P. No. 826 of 1992 filed by the appellant was dismissed for default, the Tribunal held that the remedy of appellant is to file a petition for restoration of the said O.P. but not to file a fresh O.P. There is no evidence on record as to on what grounds the earlier O.P. No. 826 of 1992 was dismissed. Obviously, even during the pendency of O.P. No. 826 of 1992, this O.P. was filed, because in para 10 of award under appeal, it is stated that respondent No. 1 took a plea in the counter filed in O.P. No. 826 of 1992 that inasmuch as appellant filed O.P. No. 97 of 1993 in respect of the same incident, that petition is liable to be dismissed. From the award of Tribunal under appeal it is seen that O.P. No. 826 of 1992 was dismissed for default. When a claimant files two claim petitions and one of his claim petitions is dismissed for default, such dismissal cannot by itself be a ground for dismissal of the other claim petition. Therefore, dismissal of O.P. No. 826 of 1992 for default has no bearing on the merits of this O.P. Therefore, I hold that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the O.P. of the appellant on the ground that the earlier O.P. was dismissed for default and that his remedy is to file a petition for the restoration of earlier O.P. If a petition for restoration of the earlier O.P. were to be filed, either that O.P. or this O.P. has to be withdrawn because two O.Ps. are not maintainable in respect of same accident. Because the earlier O.P. was dismissed for default for non-prosecution, appellant can proceed with the prosecution of this O.P. The point is answered accordingly.
Point No. 2:
5. In charge-sheet Exh. A2, it is stated that when appellant was boarding the bus from the front door, he had fallen on the road and left front wheel of the said bus ran over the hand of the appellant, From a careful reading of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and RW 1 and the above averment in Exh. A2 it is easy to see that the appellant tried to board a bus in motion by holding a carrier in his hand. Rules 415 and 417 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1984, prohibit mounting and taking hold of vehicle in motion. Therefore, it is clear that accident occurred only due to negligence of appellant and not due to negligence of the driver of the bus. So I hold that accident occurred only due to negligence of the appellant and not due to negligence of respondent No. 2. The point is answered accordingly.
Point No. 3:
6. Since appellant suffered a permanent disability as disclosed from Exh. A4 by way of amputation of the left hand, in view of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in force by the date of the accident, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12,000. The point is answered accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and an award is passed for Rs. 12,000 in favour of the appellant against respondent No. 1 with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of registration of the petition till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs before Tribunal. Rest of the claim of appellant is dismissed without costs. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.