WPMS/1444/2009
2023 Latest Caselaw 1358 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 1444 of 2009
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondents.

As a consequence of an accident, which has chanced on 14th December, 2000, the respondents had preferred a Claim Petition before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, being Claim Petition No. 111 of 2002. The said Claim Petition was rejected by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 17th January, 2004. The said award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has attained the finality and has not been put to challenge by the respondents by preferring an Appeal from the order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Rather the claimants/respondents have chosen to invoke Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, by filing a Workman Compensation Claim Petition No. Nil of 2006. The said Claim Petition has been dismissed by the order dated 7th May, 2009.

A very short question, which will be required to be answered, is as to whether a Claim Petition under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, would at all be maintainable after the dismissal of the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the bar created by the provisions contained under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is extracted hereunder :-

"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."

Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, provides that a claimant can resort to either one of the proceedings provided under Section 167 of the Act. Resort to both the remedies is not available to the claimant, and particularly, in the instant case, where the rejection of the Claim Petition by the judgment and award dated 7th January, 2004, has attained finality.

On this limited count itself, the Writ Petition would stand allowed, and as a consequence, thereto, the order of 7th May, 2009, as rendered in Workman Compensation Petition No. Nil of 2006, by the Court of Workman Compensation Commissioner, would hereby stand quashed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 17.05.2023 Shiv