Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 20.11.2000 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the findings have been recorded against the petitioner and the Tribunal has directed summoning of the petitioner for enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner, an Advocate, represented one Harak Lal in a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act').

3. During the pendency of the petition, an application came to be filed by the insurer - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, inter alia, contending that the claimant had received a sum of Rs.1,61,724/- for the damage to the Jeep by filing Complaint No. 2/1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara ('District Forum'); on account of receipt of cheque towards compensation, the claim petition was not maintainable and it was prayed that as the claimant has suppressed the fact and has filed the petition seeking compensation, the claimant be punished.

4. The application was replied on behalf of claimant - Harak Lal and it was contended that the Jeep was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited; claim was raised with the Insurance Company, which was rejected by it, therefore, complaint was made, which was accepted by the District Forum on 18.11.1997 and direction was given to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, against which, an appeal was pending before the State Commission; the claim of the petitioner was for a sum of Rs.2,57,840/-, however, only a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- has been awarded and the order of the District Forum was not final; the application before the Tribunal was for the negligence of the vehicle involved and the dispute before the District Forum was pertaining to contract between the applicant and his Insurance Company and applicant was not seeking to get compensation more than loss suffered by him.

5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties by its impugned order dated 20.11.2000, inter alia, observed and directed as under:-

"There are two questions to be answered in this matter. First, whether this claim petition is maintainable in the above mentioned facts and circumstances. Secondly, what are the consequences of supplying false information, declaration and making double claim in the matter?

Adjudication for claim for damages to the property i.e. jeep (on account of the said accident) against the Insurance Company etc. is the crux of the matter. The applicant could choose only one Forum. In such matter he cannot file claim petitions before more than one Forum. It is altogether different and irrelevant thing how much of the claim is accepted or denied after the full adjudication. Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') provides option regarding claims for compensation in motor accident cases in certain cases. In other words if the claimant injured/deceased is/was a unknown who met with a motor vehicle accident, he can file his claim before the MACT (tribunal) or before the Workman Compensation Authority but not before the both. Similarly the very idea and object behind column No.27(ii) and 28 is to get complete information so as to cheque & thwart the double claim.

Thus, the reply of the applicant side is baseless and is therefore, unacceptable.

Consequently, this claim petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed.

The applicant in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances appears to have prima facie committed offences punishable u/ss 177, 199, 200, 193 & 209 & 420/54 I.P.C. But before proceeding further, it is expedient to make an enquiry u/s 340 I.P.C. read with 195(1) Cr.P.C. and record statement of all the concerned. It is unfortunate that Mr. Dinesh Somani, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant was in know of all the facts as he was counsel for the applicant in both the matters from the very inception of the proceedings and still h