Under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants can only pursue compensation under either the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen Compensation Act, not both for the same incident.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both the appeals are being decided by this common order.

Factual Matrix:-

2. The instant misc. appeals have been preferred against the impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, Bundi and Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur-I in WCC Case Nos.10/2011 and 185/2009 respectively.

Contentions of the Appellant:-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an accident occurred on 21.04.2009 wherein one person namely Jagdish died and in another accident occurred on 29.01.2003 several persons sustained injuries. Thereafter, the claimants-respondents submitted two different claim petitions under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, i.e., MACT Case Nos.368/2009 and 689/2003 respectively. Learned counsel submits that the dependents of the deceased-Jagdish filed the claim petition bearing MACT Case No.368/2009 before the MACT, Bundi and the injured persons filed MACT Case No.689/2003 before MACT, Jaipur City seeking compensation. Learned counsel submits that both the aforesaid claim petitions filed by the above persons, i.e., the claimants- respondents, were allowed by two different awards dated 18.03.2011 and 04.11.2004. Learned counsel submits that in MACT Case No.368/2009, an award of Rs.4,44,000/- was passed vide award dated 18.03.2011 whereas, in MACT Case No.689/2003, an award of Rs.4,43,000/- was passed vide award dated 04.11.2004 and the claimants-respondents have received the aforesaid amount under the above awards respectively. But, inspite of receipt of the aforesaid award amounts, the claimants- respondents again submitted two different claim petitions, under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act of 1923”) before the Workman Compensation Commissioner (for short “WCC”); one at Bundi and another at Jaipur City, i.e., WCC Case Nos.10/2011 and 185/2009 respectively. Learned counsel submits that the claim petition submitted before the WCC at Bundi, i.e., Case No.10/2011 was allowed and the award dated 10.12.2012 came to be passed and a compensation of Rs.4,11,900/- along-with interest @ 12% was granted in favour of the claimants-respondents.

Similarly, Case No.185/2009 submitted before the WCC, Jaipur City was allowed and the award dated 29.08.2011 was passed and a compensation of Rs.2,95,590/- along-with interest @ 12% was granted in favour of the claimant-respondent.

4. Learned counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law, as per Section 167 of the Act of 1988, that the dependents of the deceased/claimants and the injured are entitled to avail only one remedy, i.e., either under the provisions of the Act of 1988 or under the provisions of the Act of 1923. But in any case, such persons cannot be allowed to avail two distinct & parallel remedies for getting two different awards. Inspite of the above, two different claim petitions were submitted and the same were awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents in contravention of the aforesaid provisions