THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.446 of 2000 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 to 4 ﬁled O.P.No.189 of 1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District, claiming a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that Sri V.B. Pias, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4, was driving a goods vehicle, bearing No. CAM 3811, owned by the 6th respondent and insured with the appellant, from Banglore to Hindupur and when he approached near Thumakunta Check Post in the border of A.P. State, a bus, bearing No. AP 09/Z 307, owned by the APSRTC, the 5th respondent herein, dashed against the goods vehicle, in a high-speed, resulting in serious injuries to Pias. He is said to have died on the spot. Crime No.63 of 1993 was registered. According to them, the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/-, per month, and that he was aged 30 years, at the time of accident. The O.P. was opposed by the 5 th respondent. According to them, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, and that respondents 1 to 4 are not the legal heirs of the deceased. The age and wages pleaded by respondents 1 to 4 were also disputed. The 6th respondent remained ex parte. The appellant herein also ﬁled counter, opposing the O.P. It was pleaded that there was no valid insurance coverage for the vehicle driven by the deceased. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred, on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. Through its order, dated 31.08.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,88,920/-, against the appellant and respondents 5 and 6 and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 4. Hence, this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Notice to respondents 1 to 4 was sent by this Court directly as well as the High Court of Karnataka, since they are residents of Bangalore. On one notice, it was endorsed that ‘no such person is available’ and in another notice, it is mentioned as ‘not known’. Further, absolute stay was granted by this Court, while admitting the C.M.A., way back on 10.03.2000. Respondents 1 to 4 have not approached this Court for modiﬁcation thereof. It obviously shows that they are not interested in pursuing the matter. The principal ground urged in the appeal is that respondents 1 to 4 instituted proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the W.C. Act’) by ﬁling W.C.No.101 of 1994 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kurnool, which was later on transferred to the authorities of Banglore and a sum of Rs.82,500/- was awarded as compensation. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V. Act’) mandates that an individual can choose to submit a claim either under the M.V. Act or the W.C. Act. There is a prohibition against the pursuit of remedies, under both the provisions. Obviously, not being aware of institution of the proceedings, under the W.C. Act by respondents 1 to 4 and the orders passed therein, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the M.V. Act. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.11.2011 GJ