Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—Supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

2. Heard Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant, Sri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and perused the material brought on record.

3. By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Shahjahanpur Region, Shahjahanpur, in W.C. Case No. 31 of 2013, Smt. Annpurna Gupta and another v. Baghauli Sugar Factory and Distillery Ltd. and another, whereby compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,97,542/- (four lacs ninety seven thousand five hundred and forty two only) have been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1, Smt. Annapurna Gupta.

4. Brief reference of the relevant facts of the case as discernible from the certified copy of the impugned award appears to be that late Rakesh Chandra Gupta, husband of the respondent No. 1 was employed in the Bhagauli sugar factory and distillery Ltd. Bikapur, District Hardoi as an employee/store clerk at monthly stipend Rs. 6500/- besides Rs. 100/- @ per diem as diet money. The deceased Rakesh Chandra Gupta was working in the aforesaid factory at the direction of his employer. On 4.1.2013 when the offending truck PV 29-9735 dashed him due to which he died. The case was registered at Police Station Baghauli, District Hardoi and post mortem examination was conducted. The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident.

5. It is admitted position that the deceased Rakesh Chandra Gupta died while discharging his duty as an employee of the aforesaid sugar mill. The deceased was survived apart from his wife Annapurna Gupta - respondent No. 1, by his son Abhishek, daughter Km. Monika and mother Munni Devi aged 70 years. The entire family of the deceased was based on the monthly earning of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of the deceased employee Rakesh Chandra Gupta, no one else was left there to look after welfare of his family which created question of livelihood for all the family members.

6. The case was contested by the present appellant and the written statement was filed raising various objections and on the basis of rival claims, as many as five issues were framed. Issue No. 1 related to the factum of the accident, whereas, issue No. 2 related to the fact of insurance and to the fact of the insured company and its employees. Issue No. 3 related to the fact whether the claimant-respondent No. 1 was/is legal successor of the deceased. Issue No. 4 related to fact of monthly income and age of the deceased. Issue No. 5 related to the point of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-respondent No. 1.

7. Learned Workmen’s Commissioner after discussing the factual and evidentiary aspect of the case allowed claim of the claimant-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 4,97,542/- and rejected objection raised by the Insurance Company-appellant that one claim petition based on same accident preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as Claim Petition No. 46 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act decided on 26.3.2015 would not debar remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, because basis of both the claim petitions are exclusively independent of each other.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that in this case, by virtue of mandate contained under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was not feasible on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to have awarded compensation for the same accident to the dependents of the deceased. Claim petition could have been preferred before either of the two forums. Either of the two forums would prevail but compensation awarded by both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner concerned is not permissible, under facts