( 1 ) AS the three appeals are connected and arise out of the same accident and the Court below disposed of the matters by common judgment, all the three appeals are also being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE Insurance Company is the appellant in all the three appeals. CMA no. 30/2000 is filed challenging the order dated 30. 8. 1999 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O. P. No. 32/1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, ( 3 ) MA CMA Nos. 2739 and 2740 of 2006 have been filed challenging the common order dated 5. 5. 2005 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims tribunal-cum-III Additional District and sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak in M. V. O. P. Nos. 33/1999 and 128/2004. ( 4 ) IT appears that the deceased had two wives and both the wives filed different claim petitions in different Courts and by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 10. 2. 2003 in Tr. CMP No. 412/2002, both the claim petitions were clubbed and the evidence was recorded in OP No. 33 of 1999. ( 5 ) THE case of the claimants is that while the deceased was coming back from shankarampet on his luna on 17. 10. 1997 at about 2. 00 p. m. , at Ambajipet bus stop, tractor-trailor bearing Nos. AP 23 T 2856 and 2857 dashed against his luna and because of the accident, the deceased died on the spot with the bleeding injuries and the pillion rider also sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor - trailer, O. P. No. 33/1999 is filed by one of his wives and children, claiming that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from business and agriculture and because of his death, they lost their livelihood. Hence they claimed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under all the heads. Similarly O. P. No. 128/2004 is filed by another wife and children claiming that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs. 6,000/- by doing agriculture and business and because of his death, they lost their bread winner and hence sought for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. 1,50,000/- under all the heads. Similarly O. P. No. 128/2004 is filed by another wife and children claiming that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs. 6,000/- by doing agriculture and business and because of his death, they lost their bread winner and hence sought for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. ( 6 ) THE Insurance Company filed counters and while denying the negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailor, accident, relationship of the parties with the deceased, income and avocation, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. ( 7 ) BASED on the rival pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailor no. AP-23-T-2856 and 2857 ? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and against whom ? 3. To what relief ? ( 8 ) IN support of the case of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-8 were got marked. On behalf of the insurance company, the Senior assistant of the company was examined as r. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 copy of the insurance policy was got marked. ( 9 ) APPRECIATING the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor. With regard to income, the tribunal fixing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducing l/3rd towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 16, as the deceased was found to be aged 38 years as on the date of the accident; arrived at Rs. 2,40,000/ -. But as the claim petition in OP No. 33/1999 was filed for rs. 1,50,000/-, restricted the award to the said amount with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization. As the claimants in both the petitions filed a joint memo agreeing to share the compensation amount, the Tribunal apportioned the amount equally between the claimants in both the claim petitions. ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the details with regard to apportionment of the amount, it could be seen that the Tribunal granted rs. As the claimants in both the petitions filed a joint memo agreeing to share the compensation amount, the Tribunal apportioned the amount equally between the claimants in both the claim petitions. ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the details with regard to apportionment of the amount, it could be seen that the Tribunal granted rs. 1,25,000/- in both the claim petitions and two decrees are drafted showing that the claim petitions are partly allowed granting an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- each with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization. There appears to be some obscurity with regard to the amount granted in the reasoning part of the judgment and in the result portion and also the amounts shown in the decrees drafted in the respective claim petitions. The same will be considered in the course of the judgment. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that when in the public documents like F. I. R. and panchanama, the driver of the luna moped was shown to be rash and negligent, the Tribunal below is not justified in believing the evidence of P. W. 2 who deposed against the public documents. Therefore, he contended that based on f. I. R. and Panchanama, which are the public documents, the driver of the luna has to be held as rash and negligent and the driver of tractor and trailor is not negligent. He further submitted that as per the orders of this Court, both the claims petitions were clubbed and by recording common evidence, the Tribunal below granted only an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in both the claims petitions and therefore, the result portion of the order showing that the claimants in each claim petition are entitled to Rs. 1,25,000/- is erroneous and he further contended that the separate decrees drafted in both the claims petitions showing that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-each is also erroneous. Alternatively referring to Section 166 of the Act, he submitted that the Act contemplates only one claim petition for one cause of action and there cannot be two claims for the same accident and all the persons claiming to be the legal representatives, have to get themselves impleaded in one claim petition. 1,50,000/-each is also erroneous. Alternatively referring to Section 166 of the Act, he submitted that the Act contemplates only one claim petition for one cause of action and there cannot be two claims for the same accident and all the persons claiming to be the legal representatives, have to get themselves impleaded in one claim petition. Therefore, even in the light of section 166 of the Act, the claimants are not entitled to different amounts under two decrees for the same accident. In support of his contention that only one claim petition is maintainable for one cause of action and two claim petitions cannot be filed, he relied on the judgments reported in Branch Manager, United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Arumugam, 2006 ACJ 768, Geeta Rani Biswas v. Gurukripa Travels, 2005 ACJ 1377 , New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Banuben sikandarbhai Shaikh, IV (2006) ACC 559 and Shaik Imam Bi v. M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, 1988 (2) ALT 684 . With these submissions, he sought for dismissal of the claim petitions by allowing the appeals. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the claimants claimed in O. P. No. 128/2004, Rs. 2,00,000/- and in O. P. No. 33/1999, Rs. 1,50,000/- and the Court below arrived at Rs. 2,40,000/- but restricted the compensation to only Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the claim in O. P. No. 33/1999, ignoring the claim in O. P. No. 128/2004. Relying on the judgment of this Court reported in nagarapu Balaiah v. K. Venugopal, 2006 (2) ALD 409 = 2006 (3) TAC 224 (AP), he submitted that, if based on evidence the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to more compensation than claimed, the said amount can be granted and the same need not be restricted to the claimed amount. He submitted that drafting of two decrees is only a technical error and the same can be rectified. With regard to the cause of the accident, he submitted that the Tribunal based on the ocular evidence and in the light of the documentary evidence, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and this being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered within the appeal. With regard to the cause of the accident, he submitted that the Tribunal based on the ocular evidence and in the light of the documentary evidence, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and this being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered within the appeal. Relying on the judgments reported in Nanhu Singh v. Jaheer, 2006 ACJ 803 , oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghunath srichandan, III (2006) ACC 622 and dhanwanti v. Kulwant Singh, 1994 ACJ 708 , he contended that FIR cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence and when the ocular evidence is otherwise trustworthy, the same has to be relied upon in preference to the F. I. R. and charge-sheet. With these submissions he sought for dismissal of the appeals. ( 13 ) IN view of the above rival contentions the points that arise for my consideration are : 1. Whether the Tribunal below is justified in holding that the driver of the tractor-trailor is rash and negligent in driving the vehicle based on testimony of oral evidence, when in fir the deceased was shown to be at fault ? 2. Whether the Court below is justified the restricting the claim only to rs. 1,50,000/- as per the claim in op No. 33/1999 ignoring the claim in the other claim petition in O. P. No. 128/2004. ( 14 ) IN order to examine the contention that the driver of the luna i. e. , deceased was at fault and not the driver of the tractor-trailor, it is necessary to look into the evidence on record. PWs. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the accident. P. W. 1 deposed that she witnessed the accident, which occurred when her husband and one Jalendhar went on a Luna to purchase cattle. P. W. I lodged complaint and Ex. A-1 is the F. I. R. and Ex. A-2 is the certified copy of the inquest. In her cross-examination, no useful information in favour of the insurance Company could be elicited to disprove that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor-trailor. ( 15 ) P. W. 2 is another eye-witness to the incident. He also supported the evidence of P. W. I and the statement of P. W. 2 was recorded by the police. ( 15 ) P. W. 2 is another eye-witness to the incident. He also supported the evidence of P. W. I and the statement of P. W. 2 was recorded by the police. ( 16 ) R. W. 1 is the Senior Assistant in the United India Insurance Company Limited and he got marked certified copy of insurance policy as Ex. B-1 and investigation reports under Ex. B-2. As noted by the tribunal, in Ex. B-2 it was admitted that tractor was parked on the wrong side of the road. ( 17 ) BASED on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and Ex. B-2, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor. It is to be further seen that there is no dispute that that accident occurred and the deceased died in the said accident. Further in order to rebut the oral testimony of P. Ws. l and 2, the Insurance company did not choose to examine the driver of the tractor-trailor or any other independent witness to prove their case. ( 18 ) AT this juncture it is necessary to consider the judgments relied on by the counsel for the claimants and extract the necessary excerpts in the said judgments. A Division Bench of the High Court of madhya Pradesh in the decision reported in Nanhu Singh v. Jaheer (supra), held that the version as per F. I. R. should not be given preference over the testimony of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal. Similar view was expressed in the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Orissa high Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghunath Srichandan (supra ). ( 19 ) A learned Single Judge of this court in the decision reported in National insurance Co. , Ltd. Secunderabad v. K. Yadamma, 2005 (3) ALD 643 , held that "the contents of the FIR need not necessarily be always wholly true. The object of lodging FIR in ordinary course, would be only to the limited extent of setting the criminal law into motion. . . " ( 20 ) ANOTHER learned Single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Co. The object of lodging FIR in ordinary course, would be only to the limited extent of setting the criminal law into motion. . . " ( 20 ) ANOTHER learned Single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Islavath Chinnamma, 2006 (4) ALD 268 = 2006 (4) ALT 698 , held that the contents in FIR are limited to see whether the accident and the death or injuries have taken place at all or not. In the present case, admittedly the accident had taken place and the deceased died and the Tribunal also based on the evidence held that the driver of the tractor and trailor was rash and negligent, which resulted in the accident. The relevant portion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is noted as under for better appreciation : "9. . . It may be true that the informant, or the recording police official may have stated that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the deceased, is, the F. I. R. in Crime No. 193 of 1998, which was marked as Ex. A-1. It may be true that the informant, or the recording police official may have stated that the accident had occurred, on account of the negligent driving, on the part of the deceased. However, it must not be forgotten that the contents of FIR cannot be treated as conclusive proof of such aspects. The relevance of FIR in the claim petitions filed under the Act, is virtually limited to see whether the accident and the death or injuries have taken place, at all. Beyond that, it cannot be taken use of, to affix or apportion the liability in causing the accident. . . . " ( 21 ) THEREFORE, in my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly relied on the ocular evidence P. Ws. l and 2 and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor. In the light of the above decisions of this Court, the excerpts of which were extracted above, the contention of the Counsel for the Insurance Company that as per the contents of F. I. R. and panchanama the deceased has to be held negligent; cannot be countenanced and is hereby rejected. In the light of the above decisions of this Court, the excerpts of which were extracted above, the contention of the Counsel for the Insurance Company that as per the contents of F. I. R. and panchanama the deceased has to be held negligent; cannot be countenanced and is hereby rejected. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailor. ( 22 ) THE next contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that only one claim is maintainable in respect of one cause of action and in the present case, as per the directions of this Court in the transfer petition in Tr. CMP No. 412/ 2002 dated 10. 2. 2003 both the claim petitions were clubbed together and a common order is passed, but the decrees does not reflect the exact relief granted in the judgment and there is a discrepancy. ( 23 ) TO meet the first part of the above contention, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 under Sections 166 and 167 of the Act. They are extracted as under for better appreciation : 166. Application for compensation : (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made : (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from me accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be : provided that whether all the legal representatives of the deceased have not jointed in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 2. . . . . 3. (omitted)3. . . 167. Option regarding claims far compensation in certain cases. 2. . . . . 3. (omitted)3. . . 167. Option regarding claims far compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts, but not under both. ( 24 ) FROM a reading of Section 166 (1) (c)it is clear that where the death has resulted from the accident, the application for compensation can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and as per the proviso to the said sub-clause, if all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Further section 167 contemplates that if the death of or bodily injury to any person gives raise to a claim for compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), the persons entitled to compensation, can file claim petitions under either of those two Acts, but they cannot file claim petitions under both the enactments. Similarly Rules 476 and 476 (A) of the andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 also contemplates that for one cause of action only one claim petition is maintainable and under the said rules, procedure for filing claim applications is prescribed. From a reading of Sections 166 (l) (c), 167 and rules 476 and 476-A it is clear that only one claim petition is maintainable for one cause of action and the claim petition can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and if all the legal representatives of the deceased have not been impleaded, an application in that behalf shall be filed for the benefit of all the representatives of the deceased and accordingly they shall be impleaded as respondents to the claim application. ( 25 ) IN the present case, it appears that the deceased had two wives and both of them filed two different applications and they were clubbed by the order of this court and tried together and the Court below has rightly passed an award in one of the claim petitions, as one claim petition is maintainable for one cause of action. The parties have also filed a memo before the Tribunal, agreeing to share the compensation amount. Therefore, as rightly contended by the Counsel for the Insurance company, only one claim petition is maintainable with regard to one cause of action. ( 26 ) A learned Single Judge of the gujarat High Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Banuben Sikandarbhaishaikh (supra), held that if two claim petitions by two different groups of legal representatives in respect of death of one person is filed, payment of compensation twice, on account of death of same person, is not permissible and the award passed in the second petition by the second wife deserves to be quashed. ( 27 ) IN the decision reported in Shaik immam Bi v. O. F. and G. Insurance Co. (supra), a learned Single Judge of this court while considering a situation where some of the claimants were not parties in the proceedings under the Workmen's compensation Act and they sought to file another application for compensation, the learned Single Judge held that such a course is not permissible. The learned single Judge was considering Section 110-A of the old Act which correspondents to section 166 of the new Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under for better appreciation : "8. But it is contended by the claimants that since claimants were not parties to the proceedings under the Workmen's compensation Act, it cannot be said that they have chosen the remedy under the workmen's Compensation Act. Hence they are not prevented from preferring the present claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. This contention is based on the premise that each legal representatives of the deceased can prefer a separate claim in respect of an accident. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, the cause of action for claiming compensation arises only out of single accident and all the legal representatives together are entitled for payment of compensation arising out of the said accident. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, the cause of action for claiming compensation arises only out of single accident and all the legal representatives together are entitled for payment of compensation arising out of the said accident. The compensation awarded either under the Motor Vehicles act or under the Workmen's Compensation act represents the compensation payable to all the legal representatives. The proviso to Section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles act lays down that when the death has resulted from the accident, an application for compensation may be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of 110-A of the Mot888or Vehicles Act makes it clear that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Thus, it is clear that any application made claiming compensation, where death has resulted from the accident, even if preferred by one of the legal representatives is on behalf of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence the compensation awarded is for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. . . . . . . . . . " ( 28 ) THEREFORE, from the above it is clear that only one claim petition is maintainable in respect of one cause of action and all the legal representatives of the deceased have to get impleaded in the said petition and each one cannot file separate application. ( 29 ) THE learned Counsel for the insurance Company also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya pradesh Court in Geeta Rani Biswas v. Gurukripa Travels (supra), to contend that second claim petition by the second wife is not maintainable, since her marriage with the deceased would be void, due to subsistence of the first marriage. There is no dispute with regard to this proposition of law, since I have already held that only one claim petition is maintainable for one cause of action and further in the present case, the Tribunal has rightly ignored the claim in the second claim petition and rightly considered only one claim and since the claimants in both the claim petitions filed a joint memo agreeing to share the compensation, apportioned the amount without going into further controversy as the nature of the Act is beneficial in nature. ( 30 ) THE next grievance of the claimants is with regard to quantum of compensation. As noted above, both the O. Ps were clubbed as per the request of the parties. Though the parties have filed different o. Ps. , claiming different compensations, it is to be seen that the claim for compensation arose out of the same cause of action and hence only one claim petition is maintainable and all the legal representatives have got to be impleaded. In the present case by clubbing both the O. Ps. , all the persons claiming to the legal representatives of the deceased were brought on record. The Tribunal passed a common award. But from a perusal of the judgment, it could be seen that the Tribunal at Paragraph no. 8 while granting relief, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the claim in O. P. No. 33/1999, since both the claim petitions were clubbed and the evidence is recorded in the said O. P. The grievance of the claimants is that in O. P. No. 33/1999 the claimants have claimed rs. 1,50,000/- and in O. P. No. 128/2004 the claimants have claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- and, therefore, if the Tribunal based on the evidence came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,40,000/-, in the light of the different claims, ought not have restricted to amount only to rs. 1,50,000/ -. ( 31 ) IT is to be seen that for one cause of action only one claim petition has to be filed and all the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have to get impleaded in the said claim petition and accordingly the Tribunal adjudicated O. P. No. 33/1999 wherein the claim is only rs. 1,50,000/ -. 1,50,000/ -. ( 31 ) IT is to be seen that for one cause of action only one claim petition has to be filed and all the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have to get impleaded in the said claim petition and accordingly the Tribunal adjudicated O. P. No. 33/1999 wherein the claim is only rs. 1,50,000/ -. The claimants did not file any petition seeking amendment of the compensation amount in O. P. No. 33/1999, when the claim in the said petition was being considered. The claimants did not prefer any cross-objections and further from a perusal of the entire facts and circumstances, without there being any cross-objections, I do not find any reason to enhance the amount. ( 32 ) AS already noted above, the tribunal at Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment arrived at Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the compensation, but granted Rs. 1,25,000/- each in both the claim petitions in O. P. Nos. 33/ 1999 and 128/2004 and curiously two separate decrees were drafted in both the claim petitions showing that an amount of rs. 1,50,000/- is granted in each of the petition. As per the above discussion, for one cause of action, only one claim petition is maintainable and in the present case all the persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased were brought on record and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and there are also no cross-objections. It is well settled that if there is any discrepancy between the decree and the judgment, the latter prevails. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is made clear that the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization is only for the claim petition in O. P. No. 33/1999. All the claimants shall share the amount equally as per the memo filed by them. Both the issues framed are answered in the affirmative. ( 33 ) WITH the above modification of the impugned common order, the appeals in cma Nos. 2739 and 2740 of 2006 are disposed of. ( 34 ) WITH regard to CMA No. 30/2000 which is filed against the order and decree in O. P. No. 32/1999, it is needles to observe that the amount of Rs. ( 33 ) WITH the above modification of the impugned common order, the appeals in cma Nos. 2739 and 2740 of 2006 are disposed of. ( 34 ) WITH regard to CMA No. 30/2000 which is filed against the order and decree in O. P. No. 32/1999, it is needles to observe that the amount of Rs. 50,000/-granted under Section 140 of the Act, if paid, shall be reduced from the amount of compensation granted in O. P. No. 33/1999 and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( 35 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, in all the appeals, there shall be no order as to costs.