Claimants cannot claim compensation under both the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, as provided by Section 110-AA of the old Act.

K.M. Agarwal, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed against an interim award of Rs. 15,000/- made by the Claims Tribunal under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (in short, the 'old Act').

2. It is not in dispute that on 3.5.1982, there was a collision between one Matador No. MTR 3831 and truck No. CPH 775 and as a result of that one Nasiruddin, the driver of Matador, died. The Matador was owned by the respondent No. 9, Dr. Kailash Agarwal and insured with the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As against this, the truck was owned by the respondent No. 8, Jagannath Gupta, driven by the respondent No. 7, Latoori Singh and insured with the respondent No. 6, National Insurance Co. Ltd. It is not disputed before me that after the death of Nasiruddin, the driver of ill-fated Matador, his legal representatives made an application for compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and also obtained compensation under that Act. The legal representatives of the deceased Nasiruddin also filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They also filed an application under Section 92-A of the old Act for interim award, which was resisted by the appellant on the ground that they had received compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, their claim was not maintainable. The objection was overruled and the claimants were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- by the impugned award. Being aggrieved, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this miscellaneous appeal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. As earlier pointed out, the learned counsel for the claimants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) did not dispute before me that the claimants had also preferred a claim under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and had received compensation under that Act. Section 110-AA of the old Act gave specific option to the claimants either to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but they could not claim compensation under both the Acts. The provisions were as follows:

110-AA. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the claim preferred by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal after having made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was misconceived and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal could not have awarded any interim award to the claimants under Section 92-A of the old Act. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 also makes a similar provision in Section 167 and, therefore, the claimants cannot even claim any relief under the new Act after having obtained compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned interim award made by the Claims Tribunal is quashed but without any order as to costs. The Claims Tribunal is also directed to dispose of the claim petition itself accordingly.