JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal is at the instance of United India Insurance Co. Limited challenging the award dated 28-12-1988 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra Division at Dharamshala, granting compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 besides costs and interest in favour of Sh. Bhagat Ram, claimant-respondent. 2. M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand, owner-respondent, owned truck bearing registration No. HPK 8796. This truck was insured with.. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It met with an accident on 4-8-1986 at Tundi Khad, district Kangra. The driver of the truck Sh Vijay Kumar died on the spot and Sh Bhagat Ram, who was cleaner on the truck, received grievous injuries Sh Bhagat Ram remained under treatment in various hospitals and ultimately he was declared to have 100% permanent disability. 3. Sh. Bhagat Ram filed claim petition MAC No. 32 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala on 6-10-1987. He claimed Rs. 1, 00,000" as compensation. As his claim petition was time barred, he filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay The sufficient cause shown in the application was that after the accident, he remained under treatment in different hospitals which was still continuing. He also stated that for some time he remained under mental shock and was not in a fit state of mind to file his claim petition within limitation, 4. In their written statements, both United India Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand pointed out that Bhagat Ram had already filed a petition under the Workmens Compensation Act and he was not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The plea of United India Insurance Company Ltd. in Para 2 of the preliminary objection was as under:- "That since the petitioner has filed two claim petitions under Workmens Compensation, each before S. D. M. Nurpur and S. D. M. Palampur, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition." In the rejoinder, Sh. Bhagat Ram denied the allegation of having filed a claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act. 5. On 18-4-1988, issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand did not ask for the framing of an issue that the claim petition was not maintainable as Sh. Bhagat Ram denied the allegation of having filed a claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act. 5. On 18-4-1988, issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand did not ask for the framing of an issue that the claim petition was not maintainable as Sh. Bhagat Ram had already filed a claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act. When Sh. Bhagat Ram was producing his evidence, the United India Insurance Company Ltd filed an award dated 30-3-1988 of the S. D. O.-cum-Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur, District Kangra, granting an amount of Rs 30,240 to Sh. Bhagat Ram 6. On coming to know of this award, Sh. Bhagat Ram filed an application under section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act for permitting him to pursue the Accident Claims Petition. In his application, he had clearly stated that neither he had filed any application for claiming compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur, nor he had appeared before him. He further made it clear that neither he received any amount nor he intended to receive any amount under the Workmens Compensation Act. The United India Insurance Company Ltd, filed its reply to the application and asserted that the claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act was filed by Sh. Bhagat Ram and he had the knowledge of its proceedings and the award of the Commissioner, 7. The application was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1) vide its order dated 26-8-1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that Sh Bhagat Ram did not exercise his option and choose his remedy under the Workmens Compensation Act, as he had denied having filed the claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act and also to have appeared before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act at any stage. In view of this finding, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal permitted Sh. Bhagat Ram to proceed with his claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act notwithstanding the award made by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. Neither the United India Insurance Company Ltd nor M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand challenged the order dated 26-8-19S8 in a higher court. 8. In view of this finding, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal permitted Sh. Bhagat Ram to proceed with his claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act notwithstanding the award made by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. Neither the United India Insurance Company Ltd nor M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand challenged the order dated 26-8-19S8 in a higher court. 8. The sole challenge of United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the present appeal as urged by Sh A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the claim petition of Sh. Bhagat Ram was not maintain able in view of the bar under section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now section 167 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). 9. According to Mr B. K. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Sh. Bhagat Ram, the present appeal by the Insurance Company is not maintainable as the challenge laid is not available to it, the challenge being not statutory and one of the defences available under section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Before dealing with this preliminary objection, I would like to examine the worth of the challenge in the facts and circumstances of the present case 10 Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is as follows: - "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 these Acts but not under both " 11.. A mere reading of this section makes it clear that the claimants have to choose their remedy of compensation for death or bodily injury, if their claim is maintainable both under the Workmens Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. If the remedy is chosen under one Act, the claimants are not permitted at the same time to prosecute a claim on account of the same bodily injury or death under the other Act. Therefore, there is a prohibition under section 110 AA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 for preferring a claim under both the Acts. If the remedy is chosen under one Act, the claimants are not permitted at the same time to prosecute a claim on account of the same bodily injury or death under the other Act. Therefore, there is a prohibition under section 110 AA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 for preferring a claim under both the Acts. The intention of the legislature in making this provision is clear that it is not desirable to allow a workman or his dependants or heirs to claim compensation twice. The words may claim make it clear that the person entitled to compensation must take a conscious decision and opt for compensation under one or the other statute. Whether the claim is made with a conscious decision will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, 12. In the present case, despite their preliminary objection raised in the written statement, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. did not ask for the issue that the claim petition was barred under section 1 !0-AA. Their pleadings in this regard were very vague. Even when Sh Bhagat Ram came in the witness box, they did not care to cross-examinate him at all. Though they filed the award dated 30-3-1988, yet they did not care to bring it on record, They did not lead any evidence to show that it was Sh. Bhagat Ram who has filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur and that he had knowledge of its pendency or award dated 30-3-1988, When the application under section 110-A A of Sh. Bhagat Ram was allowed and he was permitted to proceed with his claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act vide order dated 26-8-1988, the United India Insurance Company was yet to produce its evidence but neither it challenged the order dated 26-8-198ft in a higher court nor did it lead any evidence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to prove that Sh. Bhagat Ram had, in fact exercised his option for the remedy under the Workmens Compensation Act by filing the claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur. Bhagat Ram had, in fact exercised his option for the remedy under the Workmens Compensation Act by filing the claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur. In these circumstances, there was no reason to disbelieve the specific averment of Sh Bhagat Ram made in his application under section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and his statement on oath that he did not file any claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act. 13. I have called the record of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur, and gone through it carefully The application is dated i5-l 1-1986. At its end the words Bhagat Ram are written at two places. There is also one power of attorney on record which is dated 17-11-1986 and the words Bhagat Ram are also written on it at the place meant for the signatures of a client The application was presented before the S. D. O. (C)-cum-Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act on 284 M 986 not by Sh. Bhagat Ram in person but by Sh. S P Gupta, Advocate, Nurpur, At no stage did Sh, Bhagat Ram appear before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act Nurpur. A reply to the claim petition was filed by M/s Jagat Ram Amrik Chand through its partner Sh. Kulbhushan Sood, wh6 had been attending the proceedings on some dates in person, The reply to the claim petition on behalf ot United India Insurance Company Ltd. was filed through Sh P. C. Sharma, Advocate, Nurpur. Though issues were framed but no evidence was led as Counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd Sh P. C. Sharma, Advocate, Nurpur, made a statement that compensation might be awarded according to the schedule under the Workmens Compensation Act. Both the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand admitted the status of Sh. Bhagat Ram as workman and also his wages at Rs 600 per month. Had the United India Insurance Company Ltd. cared to bring the application and the power of attorney on record of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and proved these documents, Shr Bhagat Ram would have had an opportunity to admit or deny whether these bore his signatures or not. He might have explained the circumstances under which he signed these documents. 14. He might have explained the circumstances under which he signed these documents. 14. Therefore, from the record of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, it is proved on record that Sh. Bhagat Ram did not select the remedy under the Workmens Compensation Act and his claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable I have no hesitation to hold that ft is possible that M/s Jagat Ram Amrik Chand might have got filed the claim petition under the Workmens Compensation Act by getting the signatures of Sh. Bhagat Ram on a blank paper as well as on power of attorney by not disclosing to him the purpose for which his signatures were being obtained. .A perusal of the application dated 15-11-1986 clearly shows that the words Bhagat Ram were written first and the application was typed on it later. The words ‘Bhagat Ram are written at the end of the paper on which the application is typed, whereas the application ends earlier and the place for signatures of the applicant is also little above where the words Bhagat Ram are written. 15. There is one more document on record which leads me to this conclusion. This document was exhibited as Ex. R-A. It is a legal notice dated 19-11-1986 given to Sh Bhagat Ram on behalf of Sh Kul Bhushan, partner of M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand through Sh Sajinder Singh, Advocate, Palampur. By this legal notice, Sh. Bhagat Ram was asked to get himself regularly checked up at Civil Hospital, Dharamshala, at the cost of M/s Jagat Ram Amrik Chand failing which they would not be responsible for the disablement resulting due to his own negligence to take proper treatment. This notice was received, by Sh Bhagat Ramon 22-11-1986 as per Ex R-C which is acknowledgment receipt of Notice Ex. R-A. It seems on receipt of this notice, Sh. Bhagat Ram had contacted M/s. Jagat Ram Amrik Chand in the hope to get some assistance for treatment and at that time, they got his signatures on a judicial paper as well as power of attorney as the claim petition was filed on 28-11-1986 before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. 16. Section 110-AA has been interpreted by a number of High Courts. 16. Section 110-AA has been interpreted by a number of High Courts. There cannot be two views that once the claimants exercise their option for one remedy under either of the two Acts, they are debarred from claiming compensation under the other Act In every case, however, it has to be seen whether the claimants have made conscious selection of the remedy. In this view I am supported by the Gujarat High Court in Parsing Sardar Parmar and another v. Ruddaji Panaji and another, 1975 ACJ 525 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Hemaisinh and others, 1987 ACJ 349 and Harivadan Maneklal Modi and another v Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar and others, AIR 1988 Guj 69 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vimal and others v, Mamsharam Sharma and others 1989 ACJ 79. I need not refer to those suthorities in which similar interpretation of section 110-A A has been given and on the facts of each case it was held that the claimants had infact, exercised their option for a remedy under one Act. 17. Now I deal with the preliminary objection of Sh. B. K. Malhotra. In reply to the preliminary objection, Sh, A. K Goel has admitted that the challenge laid by him to the award is not one of the defences available to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. His precise submission is that as the challenge laid by him pertains to the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because of statutory bar under section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company was entitled to raise this challenge. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position in regard to defence/challenges available to the Insurer. I need not refer to. the authorities of the High Courts cited before me except the authority of Supreme Court in British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh and others, AIR 1959 SC 1331 which still holds the field. The Supreme Court has observed in Para 6, 7 and 8 as follows i "(6) Now the language of sub-section (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh and others, AIR 1959 SC 1331 which still holds the field. The Supreme Court has observed in Para 6, 7 and 8 as follows i "(6) Now the language of sub-section (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion. It is that an insurer to whom the requisite notice of the action has been given "shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely", after which comes an enumeration of the grounds. It would follow that an insurer is entitled to defend on any of the grounds enumerated and no others. If it were not so, then of course no grounds need have been enumerated. When the grounds of defence have been specified they cannot be added to. To do that would be adding words to the statute. (7) Sub-section (6) also indicates clearly how sub-section (2) should be read. It says that no insurer to whom the notice of the action has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability under sub-section (1) "otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2)\ Now the only manner of avoiding liability provided for in sub-section (2.) is by successfully raising any of the defences therein mentioned. It comes then to this that the insurer cannot avoid his liability except by establishing such defences. Therefore sub-section (6) clearly contemplates that he cannot take any defence not mentioned in sub-section (2). If he could, then he would have been in.a position to avoid his liability in a manner other than that provided for in sub-section (2). That is prohibited by sub-section (6). (8) We therefore think that sub-section (2) clearly provides that an insurer made a defendant to the action is not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in it." 18. I need not refer, to the recognised exception to the above rule as it is not the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. that its case falls under section 110-C (2-A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, 1 hold that the challenge laid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. is not available to it and the present appeal is not maintainable. 19. Therefore, 1 hold that the challenge laid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. is not available to it and the present appeal is not maintainable. 19. Before parting with the case, I must deal with the application under Order 4t Rule 27 and section 151 C. P. C. filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. for allowing it to lead additional evidence by summoning the file of Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Nurpur, District Kangra, and by producing such evidence as to prove the application and power of attorney allegedly signed by Sh. Bhagat Ram. According to Sh. A, K, Goel, learned Counsel for the appellant, this additional evidence is required to enable this Court to decide the points in issue and to pronounce the judgment. Sh. B K. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Sh. Bhagat Ram has opposed this application. 20. In view of my findings above, I do not find any necessity of any additional evidence for deciding the points in issue and for pronouncing the judgment. Therefore, this application is rejected. The file of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act was called for. Its inspection was given to the learned counsel for the parties and they were heard in respect of this record. 21. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 1,000 which the appellant will deposit in this Court within one month and thereafter Sh. Bhagat Ram, respondent, will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of costs. The Insurance Company is further directed to deposit the remaining amount of award alongwith costs and interest up-to-date within one month from today. On deposit, the amount will be disbursed to Sh. Bhagat Ram without delay. The amount awarded under the Workmens Compensation Act and already paid to Sh. Bhagat Ram in pursuance to the orders dated July 3, 1989 will be deducted out of the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.