Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides claimants with the option to file a claim under either the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the claimants' exercise of this option cannot be considered illegal.

As per Bon 'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. :-

1. The claimants, who are wife, daughter & son of Late Chinna Rao, have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the award dated 6-8-96 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in claim case No.46/95 whereby the learned Tribunal even though assessed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,68,000/amongst other compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, love & affection, shock & mental agony to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively and held that they are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-, in all, along with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, but dismissed the petition of the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The claimants ought to have filed the petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner of compensation.

2. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 13-9-93 Chinna Rao was working as driver on vehicle No. M.B.Y. 8513. On that day, in the night, when his vehicle reached Lohandiguda near village Bandaji, while returning from Michnar market to Jagdalpur, all of a sudden balance of the vehicle was disturbed, the vehicle turned turtle towards the right side and dashed against a tree standing by the side of the road, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died instantaneously. It was mentioned that the said accident took place on account of mechanical failure of the steering wheel. The matter was reported in the Police Station Lohandiguda where crime No.132/93 was registered.

3. The claim petition was resisted by respondent No.2/the Oriental Insurance Company. They denied the manner in which the accident alleged to have been taken place. Even it is denied that Late Chinna Rao died in motor accident. Even income of Chinn a Rae to the tune of Rs.1200/- was denied. Respondent No.3 however filed a reply accepting the manner in which the accident took place. It was further mentioned that late Chinna Rao was getting Rs.1200/-per month. He used to get daily allowances as and when he used to take the vehicle outside. He used to earn Rs.14400/- per year.

4. After framing of the issues, parties were allowed to lead evidence & after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties learned Tribunal passed impugned award as aforesaid.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing attention of the Court towards Section 167 of the M. V. Act argued that as per the provisions of Section 167 of the M.V. Act the claimants had option for claiming compensation under either the M.V. Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

7. As far as finding of the Tribunal regarding loss of dependency and compensation awarded under other heads in all to the tune of Rs.1,84,000/- is concerned, same has not been questioned by the respondents by filing any appeal or by filing any cross-objection, therefore, to that extent, compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal has not been challenged by either party. The only short question which required to be decided by this Court is to the extent that whether finding of the Tribunal is erroneous on the ground that claimants had option to file compensation case under the Motor Vehicles Act?

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act which starts with non-obstante clause that '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 u