S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant against the order dated November 30, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur vide which claim petition of the claimant was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant had received injuries in a motor accident for which the claim petition was preferred by him. The learned Tribunal framed issues which are as under:- 1) "Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. BT 34 by respondent No. 1 ? OPA 2) If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPA 3) Whether respondent No. 1 was having valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPA 4) Relief. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence and heard the arguments. The appellant, admittedly had received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1923 Act") for the injuries which he has received in an accident, though he had not claimed any amount from the Commissioner under the 1923 Act. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant because he had taken the amount of compensation under the 1923 Act. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the appellant was not entitled to claim in view of the fact that he had received the amount under the 1923 Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") is in Section 167 thereof, which is reproduced 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." The learned Tribunal, after quoting the above provision, as relied on two authorities, first is, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kamar Jahan and Others, 1994 ACJ 100 and the second is, Executive Engineer and another v. Amar Singh and others reported in 1988(1) Judicial Reports (C&R) 490. The relevant provisions of both these cases are incorporated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the award of the learned Tribunal. However, it can be seen that both these cases go to show that the claimant can make claim under either of the remedies but not under both. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant had not preferred any claim before the Commissioner under the 1923 Act, though the amount was given to him under this Act.;