A claimant is not debarred from making a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act if the dismissal of the application under the Motor Vehicles Act does not give rise to a valid claim. Compensation received under 'no fault liability' should be given credit when determining the amount of compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Thomas, J.

The short question mooted in this appeal is this: Can a claim be made for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short'WC act) after dismissal of an application made before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'Claims Tribunal'). Appellant (M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited) contends that such a claim is not maintainable in law. Legality of the said contention requires consideration.

2. Facts: A claim was made by the legal heirs of one Kurien in respect of a motor (jeep) accident which happened on 9-5-1988 while the said Kurien was driving the jeep (KLW 3057). As he died in the accident, the claim was preferred by his legal heirs before the Claims Tribunal. But the claim was repelled on the ground that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased Kurien. However, the Claims Tribunal had ordered a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the claimants under "no fault liability" as envisaged in Chapter VII A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which corresponds to Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)-(For short the former will, hereinafter, be referred to as the Old M.V. Act and the latter as the present M.V.act ).

3. Legal heirs of deceased Kurien then made a claim under the provisions of W.C. Act. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner ('the Commissioner' for short) fixed a sum of Rs. 77,856/- as compensation payable by the employer of the deceased Kurien to his legal heirs. As the liability was covered by an insurance policy, the Commissioner has directed the insurer to pay the amount. The said award of the Commissioner is now being challenged by the insurer in this appeal filed under S.30 of the W.C. Act.

4. The facts, that there was an accident involving jeep KLW 3057 on 9-5-1988 and mat it was driven by the deceased Kurien and that the accident was covered by the insurance policy for workmen's compensation claim, are not in dispute. The only point now raised, during arguments, is mat the claimants are debarred from claiming compensation under the W.C. Act in view of S.110AA of the Old M.V. Act since the same claimants have laid a claim earlier under the provisions of the M.V. Act, though the said claim was dismissed.

5. Section 110AA of the Old Act is extracted below: "Not with standing anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where the death 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 VII A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."

(It is the same as S.167 of the New M.V. Act except that in the place of the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VIIA" the corresponding provision in the new M.V. Act contains the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X". This is because Chapter VII A of the Old M.V. Act corresponds to Chapter X of the new M.V. act).

6. Section 110AA, even by a reading, conveys the message that one cannot have multiple or double advantage with the same cause of action. If a person has obtained a relief through the remedy provided in one of two statutes, he is debarred from availing himself of the remedy provided in the other statute. There can be no doubt on that proposition.

7. But if the person who filed the application under one Act is non-suited on any ground, can it be held that he too would be debarred from filing the application under the other Act? Dismissal of the application filed under one statute must betaken as the consequence of a finding that he has no valid claim to be made under that Act. If no valid claim can be made, its corollary is that it was not a claim recognisable under law. If so, there is no bar in making a claim under the other statute.

8. The said principle can be discerned from the words employed in S.110AA itself, "where death of or bodily injury of any person