HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2103 of 2003 Date: 10-12-2010 Between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office IV, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500 004. … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and 1. D.Yesuratnam and 2 others … Respondents/Applicants 4. N.Sekhar Prasad … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2103 of 2003 Judgment: Having been aggrieved by the order dated 18-7-2000 in W.C.No.177 of 1995 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Nalgonda in awarding compensation of Rs.78,312/- to the respondents 1 to 3-applicants, this appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer. 2. The appeal against respondents 1, 3 and 4 was dismissed for default vide Court order dated 07-3-2002. 3. The facts relating to this appeal are that on 20-4-1995 at about 12 midnight one D.Babu Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who was on duty as driver of the lorry bearing No.AAV- 3479 belonging to the 4th respondent herein, had been proceeding from Vijayawada to Hyderabad with a load of iron rods and when the lorry reached near the outskirts of Kattangor village, another lorry bearing No.AIK-8076 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the lorry driven by the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day while undergoing treatment at the hospital. The parents and wife of the deceased, who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed W.C.No.177 of 1995 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. On behalf of the applicants/respondents 1 to 3, A.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.B-1 Policy was marked on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda awarded compensation of Rs.78,312/- to the applicants. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner in awarding compensation, the appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased Babu Rao, who died in the accident, filed O.P.No.410 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nalgonda and obtained a decree for Rs.1,35,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, the order in W.C.No.177 of 1995 passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable under law. 7. The simple point for consideration in this appeal is -- whether the respondents 1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Babu Rao, having obtained a decree from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda are also entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the W.C. Act’) ? 8. Admittedly, the learned Commissioner passed the order in W.C.No.177 of 1995 on 18-7-2000, whereas the Memo of Compromise filed by the appellant in this appeal clearly indicates that O.P.No.410 of 1995 was referred to Lok Adalat, Nalgonda and the matter was compromised between the parties therein on 20-4-1996 for Rs.1,35,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of the claim much prior to the order passed by the learned Commissioner in W.C.No.177 of 1995. 9. In this connection, it is relevant to extract Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V. Act’), which reads as follows: “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 provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 10. Admittedly, as seen from the record, the very same claimants i.e., the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed W.C.No.177 of 1995 under the W.C. Act before the learned Commissioner and also O.P.No.410 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat, the respondents 1 to 3 herein were awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- in the year 1996. In view of the clear provisions under Section 167 of the M.V. Act, the respondents can claim compensation either under the provisions of the M.V. Act or under the W.C. Act but not under both. 11. Since the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, were granted compensation in O.P.No.410 of 1995 filed by them under the M.V. Act, they are not entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the W.C. Act. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is allowed and the order dated 18-7-2000 in W.C.No.177 of 1995 passed by the learned Commissioner is set aside. ___________________________ JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO 10th December, 2010. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2103 of 2003 10th December, 2010.