The dismissal of a claim petition by the Workmen Commissioner does not preclude the claimants from seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, especially in cases involving the involvement of multiple vehicles in an accident.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the New India Insurance Company and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 06.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 902 of 2004.

3. The brief facts of the ligation are accident took place between truck bearing No. HR38D-2694 and bus bearing No. U.P. 15 E9712. The claimants are the parents of the deceased who claimed to be a labourer on the said truck. The accident is not in dispute. The truck being insured by the insurance company is not in dispute, the insurance company and nor the U.P.S.R.T.C. have disputed the accident having taken place even before this court. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased had first filed the claim before the Workmen Commissioner on the stand taken by the owner that they had not engaged Taufik as a workmen, the said claim petition was dismissed. Instead of challenging the said order the claimants preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 holding that the claim petition was barred by section 167 of the Motor Vehicles 1988 (hereinafter, referred as the "Act, 1988"). The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the vehicles were involved in the accident but as the Workmen Commissioner was first approached the claim petition was barred under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

4. The accident policy, death of the deceased, involvement of vehicles are not in dispute. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal non-suited the appellants holding that the claim petition was barred under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is this rejection which is assailed by the claimants.

5. The Tribunal could not have decided the issue of negligence as it was a petition under Section 163 of the Act, 1988.

6. It is submitted that all issues are wrongly decided by the Tribunal. it was a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Workmen Commissioner held that the deceased was not a workman but it is nobodies case that accident did not take place and the claimant was injured and died due to use of Motor vehicle Act.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment in the case of Raja and another Vs. Ajay and another, 2007 (2) ACCD 1008 (MP) to contend that as the claim under Workman Compensation was dismissed as not maintainable, the rejection petition under section 167 of Motor Vehicle act is bad.

8. The grounds urged are that:-

"(a). The learned Tribunal grossly erred in law in dismissing the claim petition because the correct interpretation of Section 167 of the MV Act is that simultaneous claims on the ground of the applicability of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and workman compensation Act are not maintainable.

(b). The correct interpretation of Section 167 of MV Act is that simultaneous claims cannot be laid both under Workmen's Compensation Act and under Motor Vehicles Act. The language of Section 167 is quite clear and unambiguous and it cannot be constitute that if any claim petition has been filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act and has been dismissed on any ground not available under that Act, the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act on any ground available there under is also liable to be dismissed on the technicality without adverting to the merits of the case but the learned tribunal badly filed to appreciate this position of law.

(c). The sine qua non of the availability of relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act is the employer employee relations and it this relationship is not established, any c