( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhuj awarding compensation as per structured formula under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act)

( 2 ) IN these two appeals, common questions of law and facts are raised. With a view to avoid waste of time, hardships to the parties, and conflicting judgments, we have preferred to hear the appeals together and dispose the same of by a common judgment. Accordingly, the appeals are heard and by this common judgment all the three appeals shall stand disposed of.

( 3 ) VIR Bahadur, the son of Sher Bahadur and opponent No. l, was going from Kandla to Indore driving the tanker No. GJ-12-T-7723. Tek Bahadur was the cleaner on the tanker. Vir Bahadur was driving the tanker cautiously remaining on the left side of the road and at the moderate speed. On 15th july, 1996 at 1. 30 p. m. he reached Ghatpir on Dahod-Godhra road. He was negotiating the curve on the by-pass road. The tanker suddenly went off the southern side of the road and turned turtle. Vir Bahadur sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. Vir Bahadur was earning Rs. 5. 500/ - per month. He was aged 25 years. The opponent No. 1, who is the mother of deceased Vir Bahadur, then filed M. A. C. P. No. 171 of 1997 in the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Kuchchh at Bhuj under Sec. 163-A of the Act for compensation as per structured formula. The then learned Chairman of the tribunal hearing the parties on 15th September, 1999 passed the order directing the appellant and opponent No. 2 (the insurer and insured) to pay rs. 4. 12. 500/- together With interest at the rate of 12% p. a. and costs in proportion against the total claim of Rs. 4,89,500/ -. The Insurance Company, has therefore, preferred First Appeal No. 7288 of 1999.

( 4 ) KARSANBHAI Vaghabhai aged about 30 years was serving as driver. He was earning Rs. 42,000/- p. a. On 4-9-1997 he was going from Kandla to hyderabad driving the tanker No. GJ-12-V-5175 loaded with chemicals. The respondent No. 3 was the owner of the tanker. At 18. 00 hours Karsanbhai reached near the milestone on Halvad-Dhrangadhara Road indicating that village kavandia was 18 Kms. away. At that time, a truck bearing No. GJ-12-U- 6795 came from the opposite direction. The driver of that truck was rash and negligent in driving the truck. He went on the wrong side and collided against the tanker as a result Karsanbhai sustained injuries to which he succumbed at the spot. The brother and widow of the deceased Karsanbhai filed M. A. C. P. No. 810 of 1997 in M. A. C. Tribunal (Auxi.) Kachchh at Bhuj for compensation of Rs. 4,63,000/- as per Second Schedule under Sec. 163-A of the Act against respondent No. 3 and the appellant (ori-opponents) Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Tribunal on 22-12-1999 passed the award for Rs. 4,12,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of the petition and costs in proportion. The Insurance Company, has therefore, preferred First Appeal No. 318 of 2000 calling in question the legality and validity of the award passed.

( 5 ) IT is the first and foremost contention of the learned Advocates for the appellants that both the drivers losing their lives were the employees of their masters, the insured, and in the discharge of their duties assigned by the insured when they met with the motor accident, the victims who are their heirs ought to have filed the claim petitions under the Workmens Compensation act and not under the Act. The contention is not acceptable.

( 6 ) ). Under more than one Acts in force, if the party has the remedy for his claim arising out of the same cause of action, and separate Forums for the same are constituted under different Acts, he has to prefer the permissible remedial measures, and if the option is to be exercised, he is free to opt for the remedy out of more than one available under different Acts. Section 163-A starts