A claimant can claim compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under both.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioner Pawan Kumar has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) on 10.1.1995.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is owner of Maruti Van bearing registration No. PAB-7530. This van was borrowed by the petitioners friend Shri Balwant Singh. Shri Balwant Singh hired the services of driver Kidar Nath. Shri Balwant Singh along with his family members was travelling in the said van, which met with an accident near Vithipur Phathak (railway crossing) on their way from Jalandhar to Delhi when the bus bearing registration No. PAC 4638 owned by the Punjab Roadways, Taran Taran Depot rammed into the van. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Jaswant Singh. In this accident four persons including the driver Kidar Nath died on the spot.

3. Report under Sections 279/337/388/304-A and, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against Jaswant Singh driver at Police Station Kartarpur. The persons who died and who sustained injuries in this accident filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar. Smt. Pushpa Sahi, mother of the van driver Kidar Nath, Miss. Sunita Sahi sister and Balraj Kumar Sahi, brother of this van driver, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, which was registered at No.14 of 1993. In this claim case, petitioner was also impleaded as a party along with State of Punjab and others. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, decided the said claim petition on 2.1.1994 and awarded Rs. 51,000/- to the claimants against the State of Punjab and Jaswant Singh driver along with interest. This amount of Rs. 51,000/- and Rs. 25,500/- in lieu of interest, total amounting to Rs. 76,500/- has already, been paid to the claimants. Smt. Pushpa Shahi, respondent No.2, also instituted a claim application on 24.2.1990 against the petitioner before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, which was registered as Application No. 7 of 1990. Petitioner appeared before the Commissioner, filed written statement also thereafter he remained absent and the case proceeded ex parte.

4. The Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, allowed the claim petition on 10.1.1995 and awarded Rs. 77,505/- as compensation and Rs. 23251/- as interest, total amounting to Rs. 1,00,750/- to the claimants, Smt. Pushpa Sahi, mother, Miss Sunita, minor sister, and Balraj Kumar Sahi, brother.

5. Petitioner has averred that under Section 3 Sub-section(5) of the Workmens Compensation Act, a claim for compensation can be made either under the Workmens Compensation Act or by filing a civil suit and workman has to choose between any law suit or proceeding under the Act. It is also averred that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimant entitled to claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmens Compensation Act. In this case as the claimant-respondent has not only been awarded compensation along with interest, but she has also received the said amount, therefore, she had no legal right to claim compensation from the petitioner under the Workmens Compensation Act.

6. During arguments, petitioners learned counsel relying on Trading Engineering, New Delhi v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anr., AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 115, contended that respondent is not entitled to claim compensation from the petitioner under the Workmens Compensation Act as she has already received compensation awarded to her under the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Respondents learned counsel relying on Harivadan Maneklal Modi and Anr. v. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar and hers, Accident and Compensation Cases, 1988(2) A.C.C. 254 contended that when she filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, no amount was awarded for the minors, while by the impugned order the Commissioner