$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010144582024 + FAO 102/2024 and CM APPL. 17074/2024 DEEPA KANYAL @ DEEPA DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Maihan, Advocate versus SH. HIMANSHU KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. The present appeal assails the award dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was dismissed primarily on the ground that the appellants had already approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and had received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- pursuant to the settlement recorded therein. 2. The only contention raised before this Court is that, while disposing of the claim petition, the learned MACT had recorded the factum of settlement between the claimants and the respondents and had permitted the appellants to pursue their claim under the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:05:32 Dyamavva & Ors.”1 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, opposes the appeal, contending that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act”) does not permit a claimant to pursue remedies under both the MV Act and the EC Act. It is submitted that, having already approached the learned MACT and received the settlement amount, the appellants had exercised their option under Section 167 and could not thereafter maintain a claim under the Act for the same accident. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it apposite to abstract Section 167 of the MV Act, which reads as under: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens 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 Workmens 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.” 5. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that where the same accident gives rise to a claim under both enactments, the claimant is required to exercise an option and cannot pursue both remedies. 6. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants on Dyamavva (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, although the dependants had initially approached the MACT under Section 166 of the MV Act, the employer had thereafter, on his own, deposited the compensation before the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that 1 (2013) 9 SCC 406 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:05:32 such suo motu deposit by the employer could not be treated as an exercise of option by the dependants under Section 167 of the MV Act. The Court accordingly permitted the claim under the MV Act, subject to adjustment of the amount already received under the Act. 7. The facts of the present case stand on a materially different footing. Here, the appellants themselves had instituted the proceedings before the learned MACT and thereafter entered into a settlement pursuant to which a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- was received. The subsequent proceedings under the Act were also instituted by the appellants themselves. Thus, the present case does not involve any suo motu deposit by the employer under Section 8 of the Act. The distinction is therefore material. 8. The fact that the learned MACT, while recording the settlement, observed that the appellants would be at liberty to pursue their claim under the Act, does not alter the legal position. The said liberty was expressly made subject to the appellants’ rights being pursued “as per law”. The learned MACT further directed that the amount received pursuant to the settlement would be liable to be taken into account in the event of an award being passed in the proceedings under the Act. 9. Consequently, the observations of the learned MACT cannot be construed as conferring a right contrary to the express prohibition contained in Section 167 of the MV Act. Once the appellants had themselves invoked the remedy and had received the amount pursuant to the settlement recorded therein, they could not thereafter pursue a claim under the Act for the same cause of action. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned award dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:05:32 The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the pending application(s), if any. 11. The appellants shall, however, be at liberty to approach the learned MACT for any relief that may otherwise be available to them in law, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 na This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:05:32