APPLICANT : (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) Versus NON-APPLICANTS: CLAIMANTS 1. 2. 0^5^" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. t2-2- / 2011 Ba Mevalal Thakur, S/o Gaya Singh Thakur, 52 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur Smt.Munni Bai, Wd/o Late Bandu Ram, 22yrs, Ku.Anita, D/o Late Bandu Ram, 3 yrs Non-Applicant No.2 Minor through mother and natural guardian Smt. Muni Bai Non Applicant No. 1. Dogi Ram, S/o Linga Ram, 52 years, Non Applicant No.l to 3 R/o Vill. Karli, Tahsil 8s Distt. Dantewada- (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through ~ The Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) ^;:1:3^:^ ^^^wj^^-a-<'r %^:^^v y •%\- 3. NON-APPLICANTN0.2 4. CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BiLASPUR Civii Revision ISIo. 122 of 2011 APPLICANT Mevajai Thakur Versus Smt. Munnj Bai and others. NON-APPLICANTS CIaimants CIVIL REVISON UNDER SECTiON 115 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble JVIr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Prafuli N. Bharat, counsei forthe applicant. ORAL ORDER (04.11.2011) Heard oni.A. No.1/2011 which is an appiication for condonation of deiay in fiiing the revision. 2. On due consideration, i am satisfied that the applicant is succeeded in expiaining the cause of deiay in fjiing the revision and, therefore, the application {!.A. No.1/2011} js allowed. Deiay in flling the revision js condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Instant civjl revision is directed against the order dated 07.07.2011 passed by Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada in Ciaim Case No.41/2010 whereby and whereunder the applicant's application fited under Order 7 Ruie 11 of CPC has been dismjssed. 5. Brief Facts of the case are as under: The respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants earlier preferred an application for grant of compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the WC Act"). The same was not pressed by the respondents and as such was dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation vide order dated 17.10.2008< Thereafter, the ciaimants have preferred cjaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act clajmjng compensation to the tune of Rs.13,13,000/- for the death of their bread earner Banduram, s/o Dogiram. ^ 6. Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsei appearing for the appSicant vi/ould submit: the claim petition filed before Motor Acddent Claims Tribunai, South Bastar after dismissal of c!aim petition fiied under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 on the same cause of action is barred under Order 23 of CPC and the Tribunai has committed jurisdictiona! error in rejecting applicant's appiication filed under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of C.P.C. 7. I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record induding order impugned. 8. Filing of claim for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 which is later dismissed as not pressed, does not debar subsequent filsng claim for compensatjon under MV Act, 1988 on the same cause of action. Indisputably, the ciaim petition filed under WC Act was not pressed by the respondents at an eariy stage and, thereafter, they have preferred claim petition underMVAct,1988. 9. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 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 provjsions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 10. Section 167 of the MV Act gives an option to the claimants to ciaim compensatjon under either of those Acts but not under both. 11. The claim petition preferred by the respondente under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act was not pressed by them at prejiminary stage and have opted to ciaim compensation under Sectjon 166 of the MV Act which, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of Section 167 of the MV Act is not barred and is maintainable. ./€Esse^^ /y^- '\ t't ?y 12. in view of above, I do not find any iilegajity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Thecjvil revision faiis and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge