JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside order dated September 29, 1995, (Annexure P-1).
(2.) It is apparent from the records that in a motor accident, Satish Kumar son of respondents No.1 and 2, had died on April 13, 1991. At that time, he was 24 years of age and was earning Rs. 1200/- per month, besides getting Rs. 20/- towards his daily expenses. Respondents No. 1 and 2 then moved an application under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act) for getting compensation. During pendency of that application, they also moved an application, for grant of compensation, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. As advised, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on September 27, 1993, following statement was made by respondent No. 2: 'It is stated that I have received a total sum of Rs.25000/- in the above claim petition and therefore I do not want this claim petition to proceed further."
(3.) It is necessary to mention here that the statement, referred to above, was not signed by respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 3 was not a party to the said application. Before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioner raised an objection that once respondents No.1 and 2 had accepted Rs. 25,000/- towards full and final settlement of their claim, they cannot proceed with their application, for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. That objection was rejected by the competent authority vide the impugned order. By noticing facts of the case, as referred to above, the Commissioner has observed thus: "I have perused the total documents submitted by the parties of the present case to determine the above said issue. It is necessary for me to find out whether Rs. 25,000/- were against no fault liability or were against the compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition, which was filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, was due to the death of Shri Satish Kumar son of Shri Randhir Singh, who is stated to be of 24 years of age and was earning Rs. 1200/- p.m. in addition to Rs. 20/- per day as daily expense. No doubt in the statement dated 27.9.1993, it is written that after receiving total amount of Rs. 25,000/- , the applicant Randhir Singh did not want to continue the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. This figure of compensation itself reveals that this amount was not the amount, which can have been awarded as compensation. The compensation amount would have been much more larger, than it. The Hon'ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Karnal, under the said order has not said that it is the final determination, so I accept the arguments for this purpose of the counsel for the applicants as it seems to have carrying truth and has weight. The statement dated 27.9.1993 was made by Randhir Singh applicant and not by Ved Kaur- applicant No. 1. If it is assumed that the statement of Randhir Singh applicant No. 2 was after receiving the total and final compensation, than at the most, the applicant No. 2- Randhir Singh would not be entitled to receive any compensation and it can only be determined after hearing the claim application pending before me, but Smt. Ved Kaur applicant No. 1 cannot be precluded from filing the claim application before the Commissioner under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as she (Ved Kaur applicant No. 1) neither made any statement before M.A.C.T. to withdraw nor on her statement the claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed as withdrawn. Section 167 was introduced by the framers of the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent duplication of the claim applications to receive the compensation either due to the death of, or bodily injury to any person who gave rise to such claim application for compensation. In brief, that no person should get two compensations for the same cause. The claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act was not finally determined by the Tribunal because it was neither rejected nor accepted, but was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, amount of Rs. 25,000/- was not a total compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The intention of Randhir Singh was also not as argued by respondent No. 2 (i.e. total amount of compensation) so I decide this issue in favour of applicants that the claim application is maintainable, and by continuing this application, the applicants will not get the compensation from two different Courts, but shall, receive from the Court of Commissioner only if the application is allowed. This does not violate Sec. 167 of Motor Vehicles Act.";