VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) Since the controversy raised in the instant appeal is no more res-integra as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties; the matter was taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, at this stage.
(2.) The instant civil misc. appeal projects a challenge to the award made by the Commissioner, Employees Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the Act of 1923') dated 9th April, 2012, awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,15,960/-, along with interest @ 12% p.a.; of which the appellant-New India Assurance Company, is aggrieved of.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V.S. Yadav, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, primarily argued that the Commissioner, Employees Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, committed an error of law while accepting the claim petition under the Act of 1923, for against the same cause of action a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act of 1988'), instituted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, being claim petition No.212/2009 (Smt. Seema Devi and Ors. v. Hasandeen and Ors.), under Section 140/166 of the Act of 1988, was adjudicated upon vide award dated 4th October, 2010, allowing compensation to the tune of Rs.4,28,000/-, along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f date of institution of the claim petition i.e. 10th December, 2008. A copy of the award dated 4th October, 2010, was produced for perusal of this Court.;