1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 183 of 2005 1. Smt. Manju Devi @ Manju Singh, W/o Late Joy Gopal Singh. 2. Prabhu Nath Singh, S/o Late Joy Gopal Singh. 3. Kumari Bindu @ Bindu Singh, D/o Late Joy Gopal Singh. 4. Kumari Rekha @ Rekha Singh, D/o Late Joy Gopal Singh. 5. Kumari Puja, D/o Late Joy Gopal Singh. Appellant no. 5 is minor hence represented through her mother natural guardian. All resident of Village-Katanra, P.O. Rasra, District Balia, at present residing at Bhojpur Colony, at Chas, Police Station Chas, Post Office-Chas, District- Bokaro .... .... Appellants Versus The Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro Steel Plant, Admn. Building, P.O. B.S. City, District- Bokaro. … …. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Ms. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ------ Order No. 23 / Dated : 24.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Appellants/ Claimants are in appeal against the judgment passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Bokaro, in T.M.V. (Suit) No. 12 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been dismissed. 2. The facts are not in dispute. 3. The ground on which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application has been stated in para 9 of the impugned judgment. The claimants had earlier i.e. on 14.02.1995 filed T.M.V. (Suit) No. 12 of 1995 and subsequently had also filed W.C. Case No. 02/1996 in which the claim was allowed vide judgment dated 04.04.2002. After the said judgment, the Motor Vehicle Tribunal dismissed the claim case on 14.07.2005 by holding that under section 167 of the M.V. Act, the claimant can exercise their option by filing a case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or under M.V. Act, but it is not open to the claimant(s) to avail the remedy under both the Acts. 4. Can a claimant after exercising the option under both the Acts, have the right to avail the remedy under M.V. Act when the case under W.C. Act has already been disposed of? This is the central issued raised in the appeal. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that the 2 claimants had filed M.V. case before the filing of the case under Workmen’s Compensation Act, and further even after the award of compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 02/ 1996, it was not received.. Therefore, Section 167 of the M. V. Act was not a bar to permit the claimants to avail the remedy under the M.V. Act. Reliance is placed on (2013) 9 SCC 406, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dyamavva & Ors. 6. It is further argued that whatever was directly paid by the employer will not come within the meaning of compensation under Section 8 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and as the compensation had not been received the appellant was entitled to compensation under MV Act. 7. Having heard the both sides, mandate of law under Section 167 of the M.V. Act is emphatic which is being extracted as below: - “167. Application of other Acts excluded.-Notwithstanding, anything contained in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act alone and no other shall apply where the claim made for compensation is in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place." 8. The above provision expressly states that claim can be preferred under either of the Acts, but not under both the aforesaid Acts. In the present case, the claimants exercised their first option to file claim under M.V. Act and subsequently in the next year, filed another claim case under the W.C. Act. It is not in dispute that the said W.C. case was disposed of anterior in point of time before the disposal of the M.V. case. 9. In this view of matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the claim application under the M.V. Act. The authority relied upon by the appellant does not help the case of the appellants for two reasons. Firstly, the ratio has been reiterated in para 16 and 17 of the judgment, wherein it has been stated that the party does not have an option under both the Acts. Thus, party has the liberty to avail either of the remedy but not under both of it. In the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. case (supra), the claimant(s) had never moved the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the said Act, rather a case was filed under the M.V. Act, therefore, the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal was not ousted. It was the employer who had deposited the compensation amount with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, which was adjusted by the Tribunal while awarding the final compensation amount, which was upheld by the Apex Court. Secondly, 3 merely for the reason that compensation awarded by the Labour Court was not received, will not have any bearing, as the claimant had exercised the option in another forum which attained finality on Judgment and award of compensation. 10. For the reasons, as discussed above, Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A (s). if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -