Smt. Sarla Devi and Others vs Jhangi Ram and Others

K.C. Agrawal, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the dependants of the deceased, Daya Nand Sharma, claiming compensation for his death on the ground that while he was driving a vehicle belonging to the U. P. Government Roadways, it collided with truck No. 61--1463 and in that he lost his life. The appellants claimed that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the truck driver. The appellants had claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.

The claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck on the ground that as the appellants had already been awarded compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the petition filed u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal decided the aforesaid controversy against the appellants and holding that as compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act had already been awarded to the appellants, rejected the claim petition aforesaid.

Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this court by means of the present appeal.

The first and the only question that is required to be decided by us is whether the claim petition u/s I10A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable. Section I10AA of the Motor Vehicles Act provides:

"110AA. 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 (8 of 1923), the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."

The aforesaid section gives option regarding claims for compensation. The option given is to claim compensation either under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, or by means of a petition u/s 110A; if one mode has been exercised, the other is shut.

In the instant case, the appellants had filed a claim under the Workmen''s Compensation Act and have been awarded Rs. 8,000 under it. That being so, Section 110AA would operate as a bar to the maintenance of the claim petition leading to the present appeal.

The above controversy had been decided by a number of decisions of our court as well as of other courts. These authorities cited before us are one way. They have laid down that Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act would operate as a bar to the claim of the heirs of the victims in case the Workmen''s Compensation Act has already been availed of. We would be content to refer to a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Balwant Singh and Another, . In para 28 of the said decision, the Division Bench held (at page 462 of 60 Comp Cas) :

"In our opinion, the law as it stands, cannot be stretched to say that in a case of two different causes of action and where there are two different respondents, the claimant could claim compensation under both the Acts. The law is clear. Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act bars the claimant from seeking compensation from more than one respondent. The law emphasises that he can claim compensation only under one forum and not both, and the choice is his. This view is in consonance with the language of the section."

It is clear, therefore, that the present appeal filed u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and was thus rightly rejected.

In the result, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.