<.-.. ^^ \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGWIH AT BILASPUR g@: Hmi'bte Shri Justice Satish K. Aanlhotri and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra MisceUaneous Appeal (C.l NoA84 of 2007 Vishnu Dhhirar and another versus Ranjit Singh and others QRDER FOR C(»KIDERATION JODGE 23-02-2010 Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J.: JUDGE £3-02-2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Po^forA4-02-2010 Prashanf Kumar Mi! Judge HK3H COURT W CHHAmSGAIW AT BILASWJR DB: Hon'bte Shri Justfee Satish K. Aanlhotri and Hon'bte ShriJustice PrashantKiNnarMishra Miscellaneous AM»al(C.) No.884 of 2007° Appellants versus Respondents VishnuDhiwarandanrther RanjB Sirigh aBd ^iere Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel forthe appellaite. ShrtHanurna(iPR®afili?flfSS»N,.! No one appears for r pondents-Ne?1 and 2. No.3: MisceHaneousAppeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vdilptes Ad. 1SSQ ORDER (Passed on 'W^Febiuary, 2040> Per Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.: The appellants |iacf pnBfierredfpteiroj»|j^,ijrxl^r Section 166 read with Sectton 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1g88 (tiencefcirth 'the A<d,1^^tocteinicomR^saticm.pfRs,1J,7Ct(iPQ/-^he^r<^^ deceased Ku. Jamuna was worlang vnd^.the empto^ment of M/s Baryari Contrac^r inJ4one( Ispat Umj^iMgnfilcjHa^M^^^F^^ road cteaning employee. Qn 30-13-200^ :dj)beut 9^ AM, resppn(^^o,^tlrc^Atryekbea(jng!r®gi§tratipn:NaCp^(^ rash and negtjgent. manner andjause^ the,gcoic|»itj^wng ^ on the perspnj)f ttiejclece^^clt whp cjjecl pn.thaj^pcrt. Ths seud Jamuna was Igyears ofagejsrtth^ time ofd^tti. 2. The respo!i(l®ntfin!surancscorripany moyed ao.enw)IfS?ti<W ynd®'' Sectton 167oftheAct, 1988,subonitt(natherointh^|sincstheclajmants 23SSS?^c:E?^S=acr-*a: '% -2-— have already received an amount of Rs,2,%16W-, whlch was deposited bythe insurance company befwe the C<?mmjssiQner for Workmen's Compensatjpni Raipur (henc^forth the.(?oimmiss(oner'), the claim petition und^r Sectjon 166 of Uie Act, 1988 js not maintainable. The clajmants denied haying preserrted an application for grant of compensatjon ynder the provisjons of the Workmen's Compensatipn Act, 1923 (heniseforth Ihe Apt, 1^3') ,a0<' Brayed for dismissaloftheapplicationynderSectiQn167oftheAct,199Bffledby the insurance comp.any. 3. The leamed 1st Addtttonal htotor Acddents Claims Tribunal, Rai(»ir(henceforth1:he0aimsTribyrpr),by;theJ!]ipU9nedpiic^ 27-10-2006 in Claim Case No.15/06, hasallowed the jnsyrgnce company's application and conseqyently the claim p^tftjon of the claimants has been dismissed as not maintatnable. 4. The questror^ anginftfor cjetermination jn thisi appeal is wh^ier appellants/ctajmante _have obtaingd cofnp$nsation before the Commissloner and if the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, whetherthe claim petitjon ynder Section 166 pfthe Act, 1988 was maintainable. 5. The appellants have sulMTUtted order^heets pf the Commissioner recorded on 22-7-2006, ^-9-2006 arKl 27-9-2X)6. From these orders, it is reflgcted that the employer had deposit^l the amount of cpmpensation wittithe Commissjoneron 31-5-2006 and for withdrawal ofthis amount the claimants moved an aRplication on 15-6- 2006 on which statement of the claimants were recorded and the daim •f'StW^^^^SF-SS^ '•*% Y> ^ ^"^4/ ^) petftion wasdismissed. Laterpn, a nofeebefipred^ursgmert^ amount was issued and it te recorded in the order-sheet dated 25-9- 2006 that the claimants appear^d before the C>oni(nis^(mier |ind their statements were agam recorded on the said date aBiid Jtier%after"the amount was ordered to be disbureed to the claimantson 27-9-2006. 6. Leamed counsel for the appellanls .Ihas aibmftted that Uie appellantsA;laimai^ngvermQy^j9nyg|p(rii^atloni(nder^)^oo10^o the Act, 1^3,, therefa^, it canndliesaidttgitJthft.clghTiartsti^v® optwl for the proce!gc|ipgs>..yn$ter thg Act, 1^3, Acciogijng to l^amed counsel for the appellsinte, the Cteims"Rit»Ui^l.h|(sjOTpoglKisjgcted the claim peBtion unclerSess^on 16Q<:>fthe.^dt,1988. 7. On the other hand, l^amed _(»j,m^ |c^ fl^p^d^ No.S/insurance wjnpaTO has^syppoirtad thtjmpugBgcl.|onJ% |?as^e$l by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the ajg;>etla^(;»ain'iant8, havingalreaijyr|^iyect^.^9yiSof^qm| r^i!to<lg|^ the Commissionier^ thejr (dann Rgetitign yniter .^tion J66^of e Act, 1988 is nrt mairrtainable. 8. In the pressrt qa§e. tt^ tn^^n%<%m!|;^iTyJiari;r^^ appljc^on ynder S^pn.167j^ths ^, ^ hereinbelow: "W^'i yWSI'fl'fri.^JW fW ^5V 977 fl/?<# ^i^* i^^ 3,M ^s^lf^^^^^^9^'^^'s^ W's'i w^ ^— i. ys fff ^<s<f'iiii gm y^ef ew ®%^.^^ •nSg^.OTs' ul^f sfhR ^ ff'fl* 30.12.05 s^ ?Ng g'wwj^' ?%ter.^' /^uW ^ St^f ^ 9??^.®%®"^i3fc-fl4~it.,SB!%,^: !8i?%? ^ ^ v'clfi^ti ^y^^ fiifffff sQy/Sf^sK^-tt^-^.^W ,, —3ns—-:-:;- -g / ^ &cf& ^tEi ^<y W^ltf ^ tlQP ltilf» ^ inl'f^Hf Ifff-Hh S^ ^S. 1M& SSiK UilS l»ffViOyic':lMK iw»\ St. ffk. &S^/ye f^ JaiSt^ sih ^isiip W b^Ki^ cb jf^se K^. a6it ^ *>->«ft@ue &(fstUlt Isi&ib ^ ^pn ^ ff^ysi M/>£/wi(Xhf\ ^f sk / ^ yfc& /*g/ ^6 fS&Salt&"^. i»SfrA* /'i^yff ^ittifMi wiSiH> ^ay& ^a ^e r^fWftliSSS' ffi tbh >lln9 l*(fp S»tl-> (^ —/gai giC2- ^66 9ffS'Se W^ Stl& 'l^ ^iA^ JB^fe^ t->3j^f(lf y:-6S> il^ ^ 23e^ag ^B"A Miiay M '^ l^it i&s^ i>BU! tlilS j, ts.iuS »&1& if* t-SHa thft ^ lt.Sln(f;S ff.jije S»,l* ffi >%M»"A«f»yU»AA^><X> U»g«p"i6^A<S UU>^ ^S ^&se PB^if &1& Stt ^: MWS^ tfQ4-lh &13 M& ff^UK ^f jSk / //»«&<* As6 ^fc kffte ^. y{*> lh»»^ k^e ^ si y^f ^ ^ Sfdt^fys ff^. b&. l&is. 'u'y pis- iiikn v'&fy/i ^A ^fi*<>p ^b 01. siizste ^sy^ f^iyit ^.^t !& ^a ^ eik ^y j^ szei Kkyjysf'»^jif s-i^fiw' i^isa xswa M ^ffl t&j^itjak ll^ I.St&K IMS tSJ Mhyil (fkl^Ve Oi Rf»l htfy^H> >^}H !^ )Wi IhCt't^R ^ Mf^Ht && y^fS^ffMM Sji ^6 i^US y»y ISln lllti^K f ft'IHfilH * hlfy^K IQ aiy 7 ^ ^r Tfrg^ ^db Ihln WtD. <b Aftt-tt Aa!>(y» >l*i}i& IM>KllR If^t-lK ^f&^g^flS ^AA (Q&&te ftt S& i>H"^ frffy && ^ —/WfsK^.^'sirs'ss ja&ii^f ^is 'j^f (/-*«> H^(iy«-s l-fS^flP^Wf IQa llfh ll^j l£*IS llilS ebh SWy ^b J^f (f^> lyiay^f svs^/ft:' /lati ttiKsiS'a^fif iui(ififf AaS .ffay A3e^£1 ^Ba^ f'Sfilhlti tb'l(ilUH»ln> ^ Sji ^ ^ so'zi. W j&Os^fyliSln^iS t'i'lia & (fifi (f'liHf 1>IB A»frdW>p<» ftW i Ma St 1^{ P&/1 Afetf ^b i>?frtf •»«i'yu»A/<^d> I^KllE'l'lt^pf feb eO'rf- iMt-y SWff f •V/ (p>«& »f(^S faa^yi^e M WMS s^/, /fey ^ad^c/ab ^/M* ftwy Asff M Af^? fWrtti~K!)^ »IS Iflf ftiA ^ 0/S /nAC&J&p/A? ^ dfr / ^ 2feA /fr<^ y&« isifiS Si hSwi^ if(f^ii, jtl& ^ Ss^f ^ ytt^ Ift^ ^ SS ff -W- ^i ^B wh<t> t-aiii jiat) diwb. '(/,/u i^aiii ^ ^ y e •e u;!<^1^ y e/ !s &. '^ 's- 3KK -4W^rf ^' Wl^sS<i>1»l gW V^l S7W ^W S^Rf 77 Ft'i'M i^n uii*< 31'ti^ii* <ww 3 W) <3^tT ff^ wN' W SiJ^S Wfiff V^ W W ^ I f^W— 5.7.06 «7^7 3111 ^w iM/flb 3 SWKf? WS)if<M/ Wt 31'll4'S4i iWMi S 9. In Maffimal InsuRuwe Co. Ud. vs. Mastaa antf anothw, (2006) 2 SpC641,jh^H!OT't>le Supisme Cffurt hss held thus: "Per Hon'bte S.B.Sinha. J.: 22. SecSon 167 of ttie 1988 Act statutor^ pfoiwies for an optt^n to^dajmant^a&igthatwhereffwftsafficifor jbod?fy injury to any pe/son yms fi^e to a claim, tor compensaftw undfr ttie1988Actassrispffiie 1923 fict,.the person enWed tpcpijripeinssepn^mayyiWm^i^ to the provfeKWS of CAapter X ^aro such^ccanpwsaSon undere herofthoseActsbutnotunderb<M). SecSon 167 contalns a non obstante dause pm^cSng for SfH^f an (yffonnpfyirithst^ncSng^nythmgQOfitwiedffl the 1923 Act. 23. The *ctocfrme o/ electton" fe a ferancA (tf "/ufe o/ estpppel", yi tenns ^tief^ aper^onf^peifyBc^fdedby his acffons or con<kicf or satence when K is hls oftrfy to speak, ftom a^^r ig a right which he othwwlw w^trid ham had. The doctome of elecSon i^i^ifytes fhat vften two renwSes are avwlabte for ffw sama reSef, ffie aggwyed parfy hasthjB opSon to electeittier of them but not bofh. ASiqiigh ttere are cwta'm fXG^iSois to ffie same n//e but the same has iw apf^iaVon m Vw jnstant case. 2A. lnNagubafAmmaly,B.ShamaRao^1956SCR451: AIR 1956 SC 593 vwsstated: (SCRp. 470) :-^^ ^^^it. "It is clear fivm tfm above ofise/vadons ffiat tt maxfm that a person cannpt 'apfyoba^B^andl i9pfot>s^e' s oiriyoneapf^icatmnofthe dwbme afelei^m, andthat its operaffonmu^ be ccmffiwd to /sfefii dasmdin l^fWSt of the same h'ansaction and to ffie pereQns w/»o,^9.^/ffss thereto." 25. In C. Beepaffiiimma v. Ve/^saff.SAa^ara'argyana Kadambolithaya, (1964) 5 SCR 836 :AIR 196^ SC2<f ff wasstated: (SCRp. 850) The ctoctrine of etection which has be9n,vtfsf^tf y this case is weff settled and may be stated m WIJB dgsac words of MaMand— 'Thathe who acce^s a^ewfitundera <teed^i"WV or other Instrument nwsf aotofrf ff»ewftofe cp/iteRt^ crf thft mstrument, mustcpnfpmi toallits fwo^aons sndrenwnce all ngftts thataivlnconsistentwMi X.' (See Maiffand^ Lecturw.jm EtWity, i.echire 18.) The same {^maf^e isststed In Whtt9 andJ'u^w'^LftadjRg ffases in Equtty, Vd. (ac) IS^ Edn. at p. 444,as fpllfws: 'Bwffon is ttie ob^affon imppsed iipQi) a party by courts of eqwfy to c/foosie Aefween ftw*»consjs(entor altematwe rights or clalirss in cases wftew %»e/®re dear intenffon of ttie person fmm whom he^deriwsoneffiathe should not enjoy bqtti ...... Thathe wAp accepfe a fceneff under a deed or Mll mu^ cHtoptthewfiole contenteofthe instivment'" (See also Pivi^iant Ram^chandra De^ifai^ y. MaruB Balaram HaibaWJ^5Supp(2) SQC S^.) 26. Thomas, J, m P.R,De^hpafKJte v, ManiS Balaram Halbatti, (1^9^ 6 SCC 51Hsts^Jt :law^UKJ^C<? P. 511.para8) "8. The doctrine of elecSon s fiaseofon the nrie of estoppel—the pnnfff^ ffiat om cannot aRfwobste and refw^ate inhems m ff. TTh? ctoc^me Qfs^ow^y^lec^i Ss w>e of the sp^cres of estoppel m ^as (qr eefuKable estoppel)wh«shs a rute in equity. By ttiatful^,jspefson may be prechided by hs acSons pr goncto^ or alenca v^ienKishis duty to ?pea^r, from a^sertrog a ^WW^K;/) /» otherwiw would have had." CSee afeo Deyasahayam v. P. SavMitafnma,,(2CSl5l 7SCC 653.) 27. The ftsf resppnofen? hawag^msfn Vvs^fuir) yncter ffie 1923 Act for the puifmse pf o^n!t)gjctwy)9nsatiQn agalnst hs emptoyer eannot now. feM ttS^.MW ff prowaons of fhe 19SS A<d ffiffiivfyr, siaswich as ttie procedure lakl qtoiw) underbqtti theft^sarefSffereiiti^ve and excei^ thos^ which are cwerwtby Se(^on.143 thereof. Per Hon'ble P.K.Batasulwanianvaii. J.: 33. On the e^abl^immt af a Claims Tribunal m temre of SecGon f65 of (fte Motor Vehicles Act, 'fQSS^^yvictpn ota motoraccident has angfittospEfyfprsoiryjensa^inin terms of Sectton 166 of that PsA before thatTribsnal. On the estabSshmentofVie Gfafrns Tfibunal,i iefiffsdteSonof ff dwl court to entertain a idaimfor compgn^ftw arasmg out of a motor acckl6nt,stan{£spusteclbySeqfon 175of ffiat Act. UnSI tfie estaftfeftmenf of the TribunaLffie daim had to be enforced thmughttw awl cqurt as^ clalmifi tort. Tha excluslmness oftheffriscttc6wioftt ^MoforAccldefits Claims Tfttwnal Is taken awa^ bySwtton 167of ie Motqr Vehteles Actin one instance, when the clalmcoiM also faH under the Wortwnen's ConnpensaSon Act, 1923. That secffon fyomfes ttiat:death orbp<Bly vijury ammgoutafa motor accsdent wtvch may ateo ^ve ^e to a dalm for compensaffon under ttie Wqrtffnen's Cpmpensa|pB Act, ^ can be enfoiceel thmughj^ auttwr^es underthstAct.ttw [^BpSon in that behalf berng wffi the victtm or his repFesentaSve. ButSysSon 167 msikeslt ctearffiata daim SSKSs s- could not be maintained under botti the A(^s. In other wonfe, a claimant who beeomes enW^ to dlasm compensation underboththe Motor yehic!es^/^ct,1988and ttie Worionen's Comiwnsatton Act, fwiaiiseof a motpr vehide acddent has the chdce ofproceedlng unoter eMwr of tt Acts before the forum concemed. BysonSnmg ^e cfaim to ttie auffiqnfy or the Tiibunal under eWer gf tt Acts, the legi^atare has incorpor^^ th^ ^on(x[)t of etecffon ofremedies, insofiirasthe daimantjs concemed, In ottier words, he has to dectwhether to mal(e his{daim under the Motor Vehides Act. 1988 or mffer the Woffvnen's CompensffSon Act,1923- JTieefnRha^lsnthe secffon ffiat a claim cannot ba made under b<Mi the enactments, is a hirther nsffe/affon of the ctoc^ine of elecffon incprporated fn Oie scheme hr dawnlng compensafmn. The pffnciple 'whefe, eifher of the two affemaffve Tribunals are ppen to a Styant, each^heMng jurisdic6pn over ttie matfe/s in fSspi/te, and he resorts fw his remedy to pne of such Ti^unals in preference to ffie offier, he is Rreduded, as against hispppQnent, ftom any subsequentrecoufseto the /affer"/see Ff, v. Eyans, (1854) 3 E & B 363 : 118 ER f178} isfu^ incorppratecl m e scheme of SecSon 167 of the Motor VehKles ^t, precluding Ihe daimantwhp has invoked th9 Woif<men's Compensaffon Act frpm hawng resortto the prpylaons of the Motor Vehicles Act, excef^ to ff»eJrm/ted extenf pemvtted therein, The claimant hawng re^fted to ttie Workmen's Compensaffon Act, is cpntn^ed by the pmwslons of ffiat Act subject only to the excef^pn recognisedin Sectton 167 pftfieMotor Vehldes Act. 34. On ttw language of Secffon 167 of^ffie Motor Vehicles Ast, and gomg 6y the pmicifte of ete<^on of remedies, a claimapt opSng tp proceed unctsr the Woriffnen's Compensatton Act cannottake recwrseto pr draw msparaffon from any of ffie prowaons of ffie M<ttor ^s? :r" '^"'jsy- ^.^^. ^••s^^'s- -a VehhslesAct, 1988otherthan what «s^)e<^callysayeclby Secffon 167 of the Act. Secffon 167 of ttie Act yyes a claanant even under ffie Workmen^ Cqmfmfsajton A<^, theright toinvoke e prot^onspfCAapterXoftteAfotor Vehteles Act, 1988. Chapter X of the Mptor yslW^S Act, 1988 deals with whatisknown as °no huK°liabyityjncase ofan awhtent. SecSwi 140 ofttie MoorVehtelesAct, 1988 imposes a liabjlity on the owner <^ tt v^«(^j^payffw compensaSffn^fixedttieresn, even yno feyfffeesiteftS^ftetf against Oie dnyer or owner of flte ve/wcfe.; Secffons Ul and 142 deal witti particulardaims on the bass ofnofautt liability and Secffon 143 re-emphasses wffgt Is empftaasecf by Secffon 167 of the Actttiatth^fffmwionsof ChapterX ofttw Mi^pryehides Act, 1988^wwld af^y even if the clsmn is maote under the Workmen^ Compensatton Act. Secffon 144 _of the /fst ffwes the prowsK)nscrfCft8p^Xpf^Me[torV^8fes^ct.?988an oveniding effect. 35. Coming to ttiefactsofffie case, ff»edaimanthasnot chosen to withdraw his c/aro uncter the Wortffnen's with a vrew to approacft.^e MofcrAccmtente C/a/ms Tribunal. What he has etone is to pursue hf^ daim under the Woiiwnen's Compensatton Act W ffie award was passed and afeo to OTWte a prowsfpn of ff»e Atfofqr Vehksles Act, nqt made api^icable to daims i/ndar e Worivnen's ComfwnsaSon A^ bySecSpn 167 pf ffie Motw Vehksles Act. The fespondent clsmant is nyteiWwito €to so. The Hgh Cpurt was m enor jn hpldfng ffiat he is enWedtodoso." 10. Leamed counsel for the appellante hgs^argyed that the appellants/plaimants h|we nqt q<gd for theproceedingSt.j.in^M'JthtAct, ^923 and the claim petition yn^er S^ction 166 !Citthei^qt,'1988was :Sife. • ff ^ t.. '•<;1 s t3 r B <f/y -^" 10 filed on 31-1-2006, almost sw months prior to the e^^tcaUpn suijbmitted by them before the Commissioner for wtthdrawal. of the amount deposited by the insurance company before the Coinnnissi<yier and thus they have opted to proceed under ttie Act, 1 98$ and not ynder ttie Act, 1923. He has relied on a Divislon Bench's jydginent <^ ttw Bombay High Court in Sftairtafta/ Parahuraro Atote <w»dothere vs. Sharda Prasadsfngh andottiws, 1992 ACJ 270 to SMbmtt that mere acceptance of the amount deposited by the employer befpre the Commissioner will not amount to raise a claim under the Act,1^3. tn support of his cpntention.he has also placed reliance on another Division Bench's judgment of the High Court of Madhya PRKlesh in K.K.Jaln and anaffier vs. Masmor Anwar and others, 1990 ACJ 299 and thejudgment of a Diytaon Bench oftheJfer^a Hjgh Coyrtin New Imtta Asswwice Co. LM. vs. Pwmamma Kuriwi, IWS ACJ 760. 11. In K.K.Jain and anaffiw vs. Atesroor Aimar and offiers (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has heldthat since the claim before the Commissioner was abandoned and not pyrsued by not withdrawing the ampunt deposlted by the smployer before the Commisstoneri a claim petjtion ynder the Act, J988 is maintainable. In Afew Indla Asswsmce Co. Ltrf. vs. ^miamma Kurfen (supra) before the Kerala High Court, the claimants recelved amount ynder the no fault liability under the Act, 1988 and, thereafter, proceeded to claim compensation yndertheAct, 1923. Boththese cases are, therefore, not appticableto the facte of the present case. In the case before us, ^ . ^ ^.. . . . .— , ., ,. . - .. .,. the claimants have withdrawn the amount deposited by tlie emplpyer //s: :<t-. ^ » ^' ii! ^.—^'./'' befwe the Commissioner. The judgment rendered by ttie B<Mnbay High Coyrt jn SAantatoai Paf^HHjam Atote and otftens vs. $Aanta Prasadsingh and ottiws (sypra) may be of some assistance tp the claimants, wherein it was held that mere flBng of ^n appljea|:H3irl:>y the appellants fbr disbursementof the amount depositi^t t?ytbe eimployer befbre the authority cpnstitute<l underthe proyisiQns of^the.Ad^ 1923 can never be treated as a claim instituted wtthin the meanjng of §ub- section (5) pf Sectjpn 3 pftheAct, 1^3 and, therefgQetSudiact ofUie claimantswould not disentitle ttiem to prpqeed und$r U^e ^pvisigns of the Act, 1988tp claim CQmpensation. 12. In Afatfona/ tesuraoce Co. Urf. vs. MasSan and another (supra), the Hpn'ble Suprem^ Court has considered the:(loctnne of election and has held that when two remedies are avaUable for the same reli^f, the aggrieyed party has the pption to elect either ofthem but not both. 13. In paragraph 27 (Per Hqn'ble SB.Sjnha, J.) arid jiaragraph 35 (Per Hpn'ble P.K.Bala^ybramanyan, J.) of W^Sna^ tesura»»ceCa Ltd. vs. MasUm andanothw (supra).'rt has been held thajt once the resRonclent/claimant thereinhas chpsen the fprymjunderthe Ad, 1923 for the pyrpase of "obtaining" CQmpensatipn and the respondent/clairnant has npt ctwsen to withdraw hjs clafm ynder the Act, 1923 befpi'e it reached the pojnt pf jydgment wtth a yiew to approaph ^ Motor Accidgnts Claims Tnbungl, instegsl, yrfiat he has ctone is tQ.pursye under <he Act, 1923 tjll the atyardJs R8ssed and alsp to invoke the iM-pvisions pfthe Act, 1988, the resRpndeot/clajmant is not entitled to do so. -' ' -"-*" ~7/^~l^~SS"~-:.'""f. ff^a- f .• ^^f^ '••'<:^fe;.^^^', '^ ^-^ ':<i~ '^-^y t2-. 14. In the (yesent cgse ajso, when the ^nplojyer d^posBted the amount with the Commissioner, the claimants mo^ed ap appUpation for withdrawal ofthe amount depostted bythe emplpyerjev^n thfiiygh their claim petitipn under Section 1 !56 pf the Act, 1988 befbre the Claims Tribunal was pending. By acceptjng the amo.i^.Qf com| n^^^ deposited by the employer with the CommtesjRner, jthe claimsinte, though initjsrted a claim under the Act., 1988, woyU be deemed to ha\^e abandoned the said claim under the Act, 1988 and later pn proceeded to recehre compensgtion ynder the Act, 1923. In the UgMof Naflpna/ Inswance Co. Ltrf.vs. Afestan ancf anottw(supra), we are n<rt abte to accept the judgment relied by the appellartsfelgim'ants decjded by the Bombay High Court m ^iaiftabal Pwshuram Mirieand otftere vs. Shanfe Prasacfe/ngh w»d others (supra). The appellant^aimants.jnthepresentcasie.cquldhaverrfigecltoatxept the amount depositied by.the emRloyer witli th^ Commisppner, if their intention woukl have been to opt fqr prpceeding theslr claim under the Act, 1988. Haying notdcmeso^and afl^ haying, receiy^ of compensation under thie Acti 1 SC3, they cannd; be n<w Rermitted to proceed und^r th®Act, 1988. The bgr contained in Section 1 67 of the Act, 1988 Js applteable ancj thus, th©impygned prcler pess^d bythe Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 15. lntheresylt,thepr ert:mjscelteneousappeal,b^ipgdevoidof any sutretance, deservts to b$- and is accorclingly dismissed. 16. No order asto costs. . - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gcqial >ras'nant Kumar Mishra Judge SSSiae^ii-^-x-^^^"