IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. APPLICANT : (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) Versus NON-APPLICANTS: 1. CLAIMANT^ 1 IL.,^.""""- pRNo..^^^"7-;"'^^ prssenteci by SJ"!{l^jt"J<'i ^WN-S:2""2. 125. / 2011 ? ^^^ ^.^ ;r'!te? ^-^•^^ ^^ci ?a 1..N3ii^T^ Mevalal Thakur, S/o Gaya Singh Thakur, 52 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur Lal Mohammad @ Lallan Khan, S/o Abdul Latif, 44yrs, R/o Geedam, Tahsil & Distt. Dantewada-(C.G.) The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through - The Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE QF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 123 of 2011 9 APPLiCANT (Non-applicant No.1) NON-APPUCANTS Mevalai Thakur Versus Lal Mohammad @ Lallan Khan & another. CIaimants CIVIL REVJSON UNDER SECTION 11S THE CODE OF CJVSL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'bSe Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present : Mr. Prafuil N. Bharat, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (04.11.2011) Heard on I.A. No.1/2011 which is an appiication for condonation of deiay in fiiing the revision. 2. On due consideration, 1 am satisfied that the appiicant is succeeded in expiaining the cause of delay in filmg the revision and, therefore, the application {S.A. No.1/2011} is ailowed. Delay in filing the revjsion is condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4, Instant civil revision is directed against the order dated 07.07.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, South Bastar, Dantewada in Claim Case No.42/2010 whereby and whereunder the applicant's application fiied under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. 5. Brief Facts of the case are as under: The respondent No. 1 /claimant eariier 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 ciaimant and as such was dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation vide order dated 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the claimant has preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ciaiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,03,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.06.2007. ^^ %^£^ 6. Shri Prafuli Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the appiicant would submit: the ciaim petitjon filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, South Bastar after dismissai of clalm petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 on the same cause of action is barred under Order 23 of CPC and the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in rejectlng applicant's application fsied under Order 7 Ru!e 1 1 of C.P.C. 7. ! have heard counsel for the appiicant and perused the material available on record inciuding order impugned. h""^, 8. Filing of claim for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 which is iater dismissed as not pressed, does not debar subsequent filing claim for compensation under MV Act, 1988 on the same cause of action. indisputably, the clajm petition fiied underWC Act was not pressed by respondent No.1 at an eariy stage and, thereafter, he has preferred claim petition under MVAct,1988. 9. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: 167. Option regarding ciaims for compensation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a c!aim 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. Section 167 of the MV Act gives an option to the claimants to claim compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 11. The claim petition preferred by the respondent under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act was not pressed by him at preliminary stage and has opted to claim compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act which, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of Section 167 ofthe MV Act is not barred and is maintainable. jj ^yr^^y^^ i '^tMit^^ 1 12. !n view of above, l do not find any iHegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision fails and js hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge