ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company who has filed this appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved of the award dated 15.2.1995 in Claim case No. 28/93, passed by IIIrd Additional Claims Tribunal Bhopal. 2. It is not disputed that deceased Gopal was employed as a driver on truck No. CIC 0552 owned by respondent no. 6, driven by respondent no. 7 at the relevant time and insured by the appellant company. 3. The manner and the circumstances in which the accident occurred are stated in para - 2 of the award. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 7 as a result of which the deceased Gopal who was employed as a second driver died, are also not under challenged. 4. The Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence adduded by the parties recorded a finding that the deceased was getting salary Rs. 2000/- per month wherein a deduction of Rs. 500/- per month was given for the personal living expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 1500/- per month, yearly Rs. 18000/- and by applying the multiplier of 15 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- and allowed on that amount interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. 5. Shri B.D. Jain and Shri Sunil Jain, counsel for the appellant, contended that the deceased was a workman therefore, the claimants ought to have approached the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 where the legal representatives who are the dependants would have received the compensation according to the Schedule of the Act. On merit it was submitted that the Tribunal without any legal evidence by including TA DA which remains fluctuating, held that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. Determination of dependency is also on higher side. Therefore, it was contended that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and deserves to be reduced. 6. After hearing Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, we are of the opinion that the application of the legal representative of the deceased workman was maintainable before the Tribunal as section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives option which reads thus : 167, Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. 6. After hearing Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, we are of the opinion that the application of the legal representative of the deceased workman was maintainable before the Tribunal as section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives option which reads thus : 167, Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workman'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 Workman's 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. Therefore, it is the election of the claimants u/s. 167, if the claimants elect to claim compensation who have been found to be a tort feaser by the Tribunal, it is not open to the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the owner, driver and insurer on the basis of the liability created under the Workman's Compensation Act, but the claimants would be entitled to get the entire compensation as determined for the death of a person/workman in accident arising out of use of Motor Vehicle. Norms of Workman's Compensation Act cannot be applied. See Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and another (1995) 6 SCC 623 , K.K. Jain v. Smt. Massoor A.I.R. 1990 M.P. 87. 7. The deceased at the time of accident was in between 32 to 35 years of age and was working as second driver in the employment of the respondent no. 6 who was drawing monthly wages twelve hundred rupees, besides TA and DA. even if that is ignored for want of legal evidence, considering the age of me deceased and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mst. Susamma Thomas A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1631, it would be proper to take Rs. 1500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased left behind five dependents on him. Therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/6th out of the said income as personal living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 1250/-, yearly Rs. 15000/- and by applying the multiplier of 16 as the deceased was in early thirtees, the compensation would come to Rs. The deceased left behind five dependents on him. Therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/6th out of the said income as personal living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 1250/-, yearly Rs. 15000/- and by applying the multiplier of 16 as the deceased was in early thirtees, the compensation would come to Rs. 2,40,000/- in that a conventional figure of Rs. 10,000 under the head of consortium is to be added, the total compensation would come to Rs. 2,50,000/- to which the respondents/claimants are entitled with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. The appellant company shall deposit the said amount less the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest, within a period of two months from the date of supply of the certified copy failing which the interest shall be payable at 15% per annum. 8. In result the appeal is partly allowed, the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified as directed hereinabove. The respondents/claimants shall also get costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if pre-certified.