K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) A maxicab belonging to petitioner No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 602 of 1997 is damaged in collision with the offending lorry. Petitioner No. 2 is the insurer of the maxicab. 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 damages to his insured and made an application for impleading as the 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 petitioner No. 1 is reimbursed by his insurer, petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, the duplicated claim against respondent nos. 1 and 2 does not lie for the same cause of action. Both the petitioners are in appeal challenging the order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is entitled to maintain a claim for compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the 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. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the appellant No. 2 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. Appellant No. 2 may have right of subrogation, but the forum is different. The claim to enforce subrogation rights is outside the jurisdiction of Tribunal under section 166 of the act. Hence, 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. Appeal dismissed.