Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. Material on record discloses that for the injuries, sustained in an accident, which occurred on 24.08.2010, the respondent has filed MCOP No.519 of 2010 on 28.10.2010, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The abovesaid claim petition has been filed by one Mr. D. Dhaksinamoorthy, Advocate. 2. When the abovesaid claim petition was pending, yet another, claim petition, has been filed on 06.11.2010, for the very same prayer, by the respondent, Mrs. P. Kasthuri through one Mr. J. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, Vellore. The said petition has been assigned MCOP No.14 of 2011. 3. Though the appellant Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, Villupuram, has objected to the maintainability of MCOP No.14 of 2011, on the grounds that the respondent had already filed claim petition in MCOP No.519 of 2010, against the Transport Corporation, claiming compensation, in respect of the injuries and disablement alleged to have been sustained, arising out of the very same accident dated 24.08.2010, the claims tribunal, without adverting to the said objection, has proceeded to decide the aspect of negligence and consequently, determined the quantum of compensation. One of the main grounds of challenge, in this appeal, assailing the correctness of the award in MCOP No.14 of 2011, dated 10.01.2012, is that, the claims tribunal ought not to have entertained MCOP No. 14 of 2011, when the earlier claim petition MCOP No.519 of 2010 was pending on the file of the very same Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, MCOP No.519 of 2010, has been dismissed for default only on 26.09.2011. 4. Perusal of the declaration of Mrs. P. Kasthuri, dated 06.11.2010, made in MCOP No.14 of 2011, does not disclose the fact of filing of an earlier claim petition in MCOP No.519 of 2010, which had already been taken on record by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As stated supra, till 26.09.2011, MCOP No.519 of 2010 was pending on the file of the same tribunal. While that be so, the second claim petition filed on 06.11.2010 is not at all maintainable. When a specific plea of pendency of MCOP No.519 of 2010, has been made, the claims tribunal should have framed a specific issue, as to how MCOP No.14 of 2011 is maintainable in law, and answered the same. While that be so, the second claim petition filed on 06.11.2010 is not at all maintainable. When a specific plea of pendency of MCOP No.519 of 2010, has been made, the claims tribunal should have framed a specific issue, as to how MCOP No.14 of 2011 is maintainable in law, and answered the same. For reasons, which this Court is unable to comprehend as to how, the claims tribunal, has omitted to advert to this specific plea. The claims tribunal has grossly erred in proceeding to decide the aspect of negligence and compute the quantum of compensation, when an earlier MCOP No.519 of 2010 has already been taken on record, in MCOP No.519 of 2010. Successive claim petitions for the same cause of action, is not maintainable. MCOP No.14 of 2011, ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal, during the pendency of MCOP No.519 of 2010. On this short ground alone, this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree, impugned in this appeal. MCOP No.14 of 2011, is not maintainable in law, on the date of presentation, when MCOP No.519 of 2010, was pending. By giving a quietus to MCOP No.519/10 in dismissing the same for default, the claims tribunal, cannot claim that it can decide the aspect of negligence and quantum. The award made in MCOP No.14 of 2011 dated 10.01.2012, is set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.