Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act bars a claimant from claiming compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, even where the claim is made against two different persons and arises out of different causes of action.

( 1 ) AN interesting question of law arises in this F. A. F. O. S. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars a claimant from claiming compensation both under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M. V. Act) and under S. 3 (i) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act ). The point raised by the learned counsel is that the claimant is under no such bar where the claimant has different causes of action and the claim is made against two different persons under the aforesaid two acts. In other words, the contention is that the claimant is not to be precluded from making an application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the owner of the vehicle is a person other than the employer of the victim involved in the accident. The argument is that since the compensation was not being claimed against the same person twice, but from two different persons, the bar of S. 110 AA of the M. V. Act will not be attracted.

( 2 ) BEFORE we advert to the question raised it will be proper to refer to the facts material for the disposal of this appeal.

( 3 ) THE deceased Ramphal was involved in an accident; he was a conductor of a Bus No. USD 7880 owned by S. Balwant Singh; while he was supervising the unloading of passengers luggage from the roof, another vehicle, a truck No. PNN 6035, owned by Sardar Singh dashed against the vehicle USD 7880 from the rear as a result of which Ramphal was crushed to death on the spot. The claimant, Smt. Kalawati is the widow of Ramphal deceased. She filed a claim under the Compensation Act. This claim was allowed and she was awarded Rs. 9000/- as compensation by an order D/-20-10-1975 against S. Balwant Singh, his employer. Subsequently Smt. Kalawati made a claim under the M. V. Act for Rs. 50000/- against Respondent No. 1 Sardar Singh, owner of the vehicle PNN 6035 and also against the Insurer, National Insurance Company Limited. Both the respondents resisted the claim on a variety of grounds but they pressed the ground that the claim was not maintainable in law as she had received compensation under the Compensation Act and that S. 110-AA of the M. V. Act barred the claim. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed issue No. 4 on this point and tried the said issue as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal held by its order D/-30-11-1977 that the claim was barred under S. 110-AA of the M. V. Act since she had received compensation under the Compensation Act. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs. It is against the above decision that the present appeal has been filed under S. 110-D of the M. V. Act.

( 4 ) TO reiterate the question is, whether the award of an amount as compensation by the Authority under the Compensation Act is a bar to the entertainment of an application for compensation under S. 110-A of the Act. A plain reading of S. 110-AA of the M. V. Act bars claiming of compensation under both the Acts. A new dimension has been added to the question by raising the plea that in any event since compensation was not being asked for from the same person twice, there was no bar for entertaining the application and granting relief as prayed for. This question involves the interpretation of S. 110-AA of the Act. S. 110 AA will now be examined by us. It reads as follows. "110-AA. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury of, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of this Act but not under both.

( 5 ) THE section commences with non obstante clause Notwithstanding anything contained under the W. C. Act, 1923. This means that the provisions that follow are to be effective notwithstanding anything contained under the provi