( 1 ) THE short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Claims Tribunal was right in holding that since the appellants had received an amount of Rs. 21 600 by way of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 they were barred by virtue of sec. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 from claiming compensation under the latter Act ? The brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated as under.

( 2 ) THE appellants who are the original petitioners are the parents of deceased Bharat Harivadan Modi who died in a vehicular accident which occurred on 8/10/1979 A jeep car GRG 97 belonging to Jagdish Electric Company driven by Rajendraprasad Pande ran into a stationary tanker GTB 6022 which was parked partly on the tar road without the tail light switched on. The jeep was proceeding on National Highway No. 8 from Ahmedabad to Bhalod with four passengers including the deceased when the collision in question occurred. In the accident Bharat and one another were seriously injured and they succumbed to the injuries. Bharat died on the next day at the S. S. G. Hospital Baroda.

( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was on account of the sole negligence of the tanker driver in parking the vehicle partly on the tar road without the tail light switched on. The owner driver and the Insurance Company of the tanker were therefore held liable to compensate the appellants the parents of the deceased. In the course of evidence before the Tribunal it however transpired that the parents of the deceased had received an amount of Rs. 21 600 under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act from the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Vadodara the authority under the Workmens Compensation Ace. Placing reliance on sec. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the appellants had already exercised their option to receive compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act they were not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal however determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 89 875 with proportionate costs and interest to which the appellants were entitled but for the bar of sec. 110 AA of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against this decision of the Claims Tribunal the original petitioners the parents of the deceased have preferred this appeal.

( 4 ) THE short question which therefore arises for consideration is whether the Claims Tribunal was right in holding that in view of sec. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act the appellants were not entitled to compensation since they had already received compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. In order to determine whether this view of the Claims Tribunal is well-founded it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provision at this stage. Section 110-AA reads as under:110 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act 1921 where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. It may here be mentioned that by a subsequent amendment introduced by Act 47 of 1982 for the words may claim such compensation the words figures and letter may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VIIA claim such compensation came to be substituted. However since the accident occurred in October 1979 and the claim petition was filed in 1980 we will be concerned with the provision as it stood at that point of time.

( 5 ) ON a plain reading of sec. 110-AA it is clear that where death gives rise to a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as Workmens Compensation A ct the party entitled to compensation can claim compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. The words may claim