D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 23.8.2005 in WC No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur. The application was filed by one Shaik Mahaboob Bi and 5 others against the opposite parties claiming compensation on account of death of the husband of the first applicant. The Insurance Company strongly denied the claim and raised an important issue that the applicants had already filed MVOP No. 992 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur and that the said MVOP was dismissed after a full trial. Later, they filed IA No.... of 2005 in WC No. 4 of 2004 requesting the lower Court to try the preliminary issue, whether the claim application WC No. 4 of 2004 is maintainable? The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Guntur, by his order dated 23.8.2005 agreed with the contention of the Insurance Company and held by a cryptic order that the workmen's compensation case itself is not maintainable and allowed the application upholding the preliminary issue and dismissing the claim petition. It is this order that is assailed in this appeal.

2. Heard Sri N. Subbarao, learned Counsel for the appellants and Smt. SAV Ratnam, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri M. Appa Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the order of the lower Court is cryptic, did not consider the factual and legal submissions made and that the filing of MVOP No. 992 of 1999 does not preclude the appellants from approaching the Workmen's Compensation Court once again. He, therefore, prays for remand of the matter to the lower Court for disposal, on merits.

4. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Smt. SAV Ratnam vehemently argued that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') the claimant has an option to agitate his claim either under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the WC Act') or under the MV Act.

5. As per the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, as once the option was exercised by the claimants, they cannot re-agitate their case under the WC Act. The Counsel for respondent No. 1 largely supported the submission of Smt. SAV Ratnam Counsel for respondent No. 2.

6. The important section that falls for consideration in this case is Section 167 of the MV Act. This section is to the following effect:

167. Option regarding claims for 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.

7. A plain language interpretation of this section clearly shows that a worker is given a right to claim compensation under either of the Acts, but not under both.

8. In the present case, it is apparent that after the MVOP was dismissed on merits, WC 4 of 2004 is filed. The order in MVOP No. 992 of 1999 was passed on 7.3.2003. The WC No. 4 of 2004 was filed on 3.9.2003. The judgment and decree in MVOP No. 992 of 1999 were referred in the pleadings and are annexed to the application as document number 5.

9. A perusal of the said order of III Additional District Judge, Guntur in MVOP No. 992 of 1999, reveals that the applicant Shaik Nagur Vali was examined as a witness, the Doctor was also examined as PW2 and on behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined. Exs. A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the applicants and Ex. B1 was marked by the respondent. After examining the matter on merits, three points were framed for consideration and by a reasoned order, the III Additional District Judge, Guntur-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Comp