JUDGMENT
S.K. Kar, J.
1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is intended to assail judgment and award passed by the Learned Member, MACT, Aizawl on 21.11.2002 (referred Case No. 96/2000 of the Tribunal).
2. The petitioner United Insurance Co. Ltd., states that Zugula, respondent No. 1/claimant filed claim petition stating, that an accident took place on 18.1.1999 involving vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/4846, a public carrier, resulting in death of his wife Hawipari alias Ianghawihi and after hearing the parties learned MACT, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2002, passed an award of Rs. 3,73,880 (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousand eight hundred eighty) in favour of the claimant/respondent. That the claimant practiced fraud upon the Tribunal by concealing the fact that O/C 72 RCC(GREF), already awarded a compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 amounting to Rs. 1,42,276 (Rupees one lakh forty two thousand two hundred seventy six) in connection with the death of his wife. That the claimant has given different names and addresses to the GREF and the ‘tribunal in order to gain illegally although as per provision of the Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, he is entitled to claim compensation under either of the acts and not under both. That an amount of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) has already been paid by the respondent/claimant by the petitioner on the strength of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2002. Accordingly the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be enforced against the petitioner.
3. The petition was contested by the respondent claimant Pu Zugula contending, inter alia, that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal instead of coming with the writ petition. That he has committed no fault. That being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge of the law and only put his thumb-impression as per direction of his advisor/counsel. That he was informed by Officer commanding, 72 RCC (GREF) to receive a sum of Rs. 1,42,276 (Rupees one lakh forty two thousand two hundred seventy six) under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and he had no knowledge that he is entitled to receive compensation either under the MACT or under Workmen’s Compensation Act but not under both and that he acted only on the advice of his Lawyer. That if he has an option, he will only claim the higher amount granted to him.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing of both sides. The original case records of MACT was called for and perused. It will be seen that all throughout the respondent No. I/claimant put his thumb impression. Therefore, his submission that he is an illiterate person and had no knowledge of law and acted only on the direction given either by advisor or lawyer has substance. Moreover, the writ petitioner save and except making the statements on oath adduced no other evidence/materials to show that the respondent/claimant practiced fraud.
5. Be that as it may, Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly mandates that one cannot claim relief under both the sections of law, i.e., Motor Vehicle Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act goes as follows :
“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 the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.”
There is no question to dispute that once option was exercised and an award was passed under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 it is not open to the claimant to avail the award again under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, such provision is without prejudice to the provision of Chapter X as per language of Section 167 as quoted above and Chapter X makes provision for no fault award in case of vehicular accident. Therefore, in case of vehicular accident the award consists of two parts, the first part being amount awardable on no fault count and the second part being compensation which is awarded of fault count by assessing the quantum as per the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In this context, it is observed that Commanding Officer, 72 RCC (GREF) has instituted a money suit, being. M.S. No. 1/2001, against the owner, driver and insurer (the writ petitioner) making the claimant/respondent a proforma defendant for the recovery of the amount paid to the claimant/respondent from the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle, the provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act would also cover the present case of the respondent/claimant as per Clause (VIII)(c) of the Scheduled II read with Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the strength of which the deceased woman is to be treated as ‘Workmen’ under the Commanding Officer, 72 RCC(GREF).
6. Thus, any further claim of the respondent/claimant before the MACT is not maintainable as per law and cannot be allowed. However, the judgment passed by the MACT will show that these facts were not brought to the notice of the MACT which passed the impugned judgment and award. The judgment and award by the learned MACT being without jurisdiction is set aside in so far granting award of Rs. 3,73,880 (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousand eight hundred eighty) as compensation on fault count.
7. Notwithstanding the findings and orders aforesaid, the amount of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) as no-fault drawn by the respondent No. 1/claimant Mr. Zugula will be retained by him on the strength of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act because the bar under Section 167 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 is without prejudice to Chapter X under which Section 140 comes.