1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.886 OF 2009 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Somnath Shankar Hase and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. D.R.Jaybhar, Adv., for respondents. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 8 th June, 2009 ... 1. Heard Counsel for the appellant and respondents. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The short point involved in the matter is ,whether the learned Judge could entertain a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also a petition under Workmens Compensation Act, having been preferred by the claimant. 3. It is accepted position that there was a Workmens Compensation Petition wherein the claimant got Rs.80,000/- from the 2 Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act. The effect of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be obliterated, which 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 provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 4) The Legislature in its wisdom has carved out Section 167 obviously to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also the claimant seeking claim at two fora. There is no amendment to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I do not see that the learned Judge was correct in 3 accepting the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and passed the award. In the situation, though it is a sorry state of affairs, the appeal succeeds. The order under challenge is set aside and dismissed. No costs. The statutory deposit be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. Civil Application disposed of. (K.U.Chandiwal) Judge. agp/office/ fa886-09