S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,delhi, dated 31. 7. 1973. After making an award in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 11,765. 00 the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that appellant had already secured compensation of Rs. 7,560. 00 from the Commissioner, Workmen s Compensation. On interpretation of section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. It is this finding of the Tribunal which is challenged in this appeal; ( 2 ) SECTION 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 reads: "3 (5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a civil court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury- (a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) If an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "we may also note the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. "we may also note the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are as follows: "110-A. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 110 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (aa) by the owner of the property; or (b) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where any claim for compensation under section 92-A is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident: Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. 110-AA. 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 Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 110-F. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts.- Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the civil court. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argues that Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a civil court within the meaning of section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act and hence an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable. In any case the counsel argues that for a sum exceeding to one granted under the Workmen s Compensation Act, there is no bar to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the passing of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 liability to pay compensation on sustaining an injury was in the field of common law. It was a branch of law of negligence in common law. This was governed by the general principles of law of Torts. A victim of an injury had a normal civil law remedy to be preferred in the common law courts. In India the remedies were preferred before the civil courts. ( 4 ) COMMON law liability for negligence was tried to be regulated first by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, then by Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 and then by the Motor Vehicles Act. Fatal Accidents Act merely recognised the liability by means of a statute but did not provide for any forum for seeking the remedy but Workmen s Compensation Act provided such a forum. The scheme of section 3 (5) of the Workmen s Compensation Act is not to create an exclusive Tribunal under the Act. The section provided that if a suit for damages has been filed in the civil court then there is no separate right to compensation (remedy) under the Workmen s Compensation Act. So also if a claim is already preferred before the Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act. The section provided that if a suit for damages has been filed in the civil court then there is no separate right to compensation (remedy) under the Workmen s Compensation Act. So also if a claim is already preferred before the Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act in the beginning was to provide for a separate Tribunal as also the procedure as laid down by section 110-A of the Act. Section 110-F created an exclusive jurisdiction in the Claims Tribunal and recourse to civil court was barred. On 2. 3. 1970 the Motor Vehicles Act was amended and section 110-AA was added. This section provided for a procedure to resolve the conflict of remedies under the Workmen s Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The object was to provide only one remedy for seeking compensation. The section left an option to a claimant to prefer remedy under either of those enactments but not under both. ( 5 ) THE claim in the present case was preferred in 1964 but by the time the claim petition was heard by the Tribunal, section 110-AA had already come on the statute book. Under the said section the claimants could not have maintained two applications, one under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 and the other under the Motor Vehicles Act. But even apart from the section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act the position would have been the same if section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 is read with section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said section of the Workmen s CompensationAct clarified that only one remedy is available for claiming compensation, either under the Workmen s Compensation Act or under the common law remedy in civil courts. The object of section 110-F. as stated above, was also to recognise only one remedy but the section goes further. It excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in preference to the remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act. Both Workmen s Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are special enactments providing for an independent forum for claiming compensation. Motor Vehicles Act is a subsequent legislation to that of the Workmen s Compensation Act. The Workmen s Compensation Act was not amended after the Motor Vehicles Act was passed and particularly when section 110-F was incorporated in it. Both Workmen s Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are special enactments providing for an independent forum for claiming compensation. Motor Vehicles Act is a subsequent legislation to that of the Workmen s Compensation Act. The Workmen s Compensation Act was not amended after the Motor Vehicles Act was passed and particularly when section 110-F was incorporated in it. It cannot, therefore, be presumed that section 3 (5) (a) prohibited two remedies only in relation to civil court. The words civil court in section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act have to be understood in a compendious sense of any legal forum . Although, to start with the remedy provided in section 3 (5) (a) was an innovation over the normal common law remedy, the object of the legislature was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This object was carried further by section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of scheme of the two enactments it cannot be argued that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was not a civil court and, therefore, two remedies were open to a claimant, one under the Workmen s Compensation Act and the other under the Motor Vehicles Act. In Radhabai v. Baluram Daluram. 1970 ACJ 403 (MP) and in Yellubai Torappa Kadam v. Mujawar and Company, 1973 ACJ 242 (Mysore), words civil court appearing in section 3 (5) of the Workmen s Compensation Act have been given wider connotation, as stated by me above. I am in respectful agreement with the Division Benches of the said two High Courts. In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , AIR 1967 SC 1494 , the Supreme Court had held that the Assistant Registrar discharging the functions of Registrar under section 48, read with section 6 (2) of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, was a court for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. In Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. v. L. V. Kumar, 1971 ACJ 367 (Delhi), this court held that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was a court for determining the question of diplomatic immunity to a diplomat s wife allegedly involved in a motor accident. In Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. v. L. V. Kumar, 1971 ACJ 367 (Delhi), this court held that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was a court for determining the question of diplomatic immunity to a diplomat s wife allegedly involved in a motor accident. In Revanappa v. Gunderao, 1982 ACJ (Supp) 348 (Karnataka), a single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was neither a court nor a court subordinate to the High Court for purpose of revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, A question as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 lies against the decision of a single Judge under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shanti Devi v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways. 1971 ACJ 247 (Pandh ). In that context of the Full Bench the High Court held that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act acts as a court while disposing of the claim. ( 7 ) IT may also be seen that in the decisions cited above the words civil court or court have been interpreted for a limited purpose of a particular object and controversy presented before the court. As noted above, the object of the Workmen s Compensation Act as also the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide only one remedy for compensation and that cannot be decided on the narrow interpretation of the words civil court , as suggested by the counsel for the appellant. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.