FA No.9 of 1993 has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Manipur in MAC Case No.42 of 1989. The learned Tribunal by interpreting section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (corresponding section 110 AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) has held that the heirs have the option either to file an application under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation or to file application under the Workmen's Compensation Act. a The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the heirs are not entitled to approach both the forum as in the instant case the heirs obtained compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act earlier to the tune of Rs.64,621, he held that the subsequent application filed for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and accordingly refused to pass an award on the application. 2. MA (F) 4 of 1996 and 5 of 1996 has been referred to a Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.5.1998 to decide that the same question and accordingly we have heard all the three appeals together. 3. We have heard Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel for claimant/appellant in FA No.9 of 1993 and Mr. Ibotombi, learned counsel for Union of India, Mr. RM Nath, learned counsel for appellant in both the MA (F) 5 of 1996 and 4 of 1996 and Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel for respondent in MA (F) 5 of 1996 and 4 of 1996. 4. Before we proceed further, let us quote section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1928), 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 to the provision of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 5. Section 167 as will be evident open with the words option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. It will be further seen that the section commences with notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 167 as will be evident open with the words option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. It will be further seen that the section commences with notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This means what the provisions follows, are to be effective notwithstanding anything contained under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act for the same injury sustained by him, but he cannot make claim before both the forums and the statute is very clear that he is entitled to claim compensation either of the two. This section gives a choice to the claimant to make his claim before either of the two, but not before the both forums. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this section bars the claim compensation before both the forum for the same accident. Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellant in FA 9 of 1993 strenuously submits that if the cause of actions are different, ie, if one is a claim against the employer 8 and the other is against the tort feasors, he will have the right to proceed in both the forum. No doubt, he fairly submits that the compensation which one may get before one forum that may be deducted at the time deciding the compensation before the other forum. 6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. AIR 1985 Delhi 72 (Surender Kaur vs. Dharam Singh) there the judgment was passed by Single Judge of Delhi High Court and in that particular case, the accident occurred on 20.4.1967 and the section 11OAA (corresponding section 167 now in the Act) was brought into the statute book on and from 1970. Further in this case the application for compensation was filed before the Tribunal in the year 1967, ie, before section 11 OAA came into force. Further in this case the application for compensation was filed before the Tribunal in the year 1967, ie, before section 11 OAA came into force. Fault found with the judgment of the Tribunal, in that case was that the Tribunal deducted certain amount of money payable to the deceased on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension and other things of the deceased which the legal representatives get after his death and the Delhi High Court held that this cannot be done inasmuch b as these are the amounts due to the deceased and that cannot be the factor for deciding the compensation either for the bodily injury or for the death of the deceased and it was in that context, the Delhi High Court pointed out that any view to the contrary may provide a licensee to cause death by accident by any affluent person withimmunity without inviting liability for damages/compensation. Because if this amounts are to be deducted at the time determining the compensation, the employer shall go scot free and he will not be liable even to pay Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, and in para 10 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court has pointed out as follows : “10. The accident in the present case took place in the year 1967 and the right to claim compensation thus accrued then. The petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was also moved in June 1967. The new provision of law coming into force in 1970, therefore, could not affect the rights already accrued. The legal representatives thus had no opportunity to exercise option under its provisions and, therefore, they could not work to their detriment. Moreover, this section covers those cases only in which death or injury is caused to a workmen by accident arising out of or in the course of employment. The liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act results from the mere incidence of employment and is independent of any neglect or wrongful act on the part of the employer. The same springs out of the relationship of master and servant, and not out of tort. While for a claim for damages under the common law, one has to establish the element of negligence in order to prove the tortious liability of the employer. In the case of a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act the liability is statutory. The same springs out of the relationship of master and servant, and not out of tort. While for a claim for damages under the common law, one has to establish the element of negligence in order to prove the tortious liability of the employer. In the case of a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act the liability is statutory. In each case the right of compensation or damages is rooted in a different legal concept. Ordinarily, it could have been possible in such cases for the claim to lie both under the common law as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Legislature has, however, intervened to provide against the grant of relief twice over. See in this regard Gayatri Devi vs. Tani Ram AIR 1976 Himachal Pradesh 75.” So, this case does not help the appellant and as quoted above, it was found by the Delhi High Court that Legislature has intervened to provide against the grant of relief twice over. 7. The next case which is relied by Mr. Singh, learned counsel is AIR 1976 Him Pradesh 75 (Smti Gayatri Deyi vs. Tani Ram & others). In that case the accident took place before section 11 OAA came into force and the claim petition was also filed before that particular section came into operation. It was in that context the Himachal Pradesh High Court have pointed out that at that time they had the remedy to approach both the forum. It is further pointed out that section 110AA was prospective in nature and not retrospective. So, it cannot extinguish and/or wipe out a vested right of a person. Hence, this case also does not help the appellant. 8. There is unanimous views of the different High Courts on this point and we only rely on some of them. 1. AIR 1988 Gujrat 69 (Harivandan vs. Chandra Singh) what happened in that case was that some amount of money was paid to the deceased on account of Workmen's Compensation Act. There was no deliberate choice on the part of . the heirs of deceased and it was in that context the Gujrat High Court has pointed out that heirs of the deceased made no claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act but once an option is exercised by the heirs, they will not have any right to claim before the other forum. the heirs of deceased and it was in that context the Gujrat High Court has pointed out that heirs of the deceased made no claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act but once an option is exercised by the heirs, they will not have any right to claim before the other forum. The Gujrat High Court further pointed out that the persons entitled to compensation must make a conscious decision and opt for one forum. Once they opted to approach one forum, definitely there is bar for them to approach the other forum on the same count by virtue of section 167. 2. AIR 1982 Allahabad-198 (Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ram Sunder Dubey & others) where also the same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court. 3. AIR 1983 Patna 95 (M/s Kanoria Overseas Corporation vs. Dama Yanti Vyas & others). In that case the Patna High Court has held that section110AA was a bar for an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation arising out of an accident which was already the subject matter of a claim before the Tribunal. It was further held that a person who is entitled to compensation under both the Acts, cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. He must choose one of the forums. 9. We respectfully agree with the decisions and we are of the view that once an option is exercised by the heirs of the deceased either to have compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act Or to file an application under the Motor Vehicles Act, that option will be final and he cannot later on or simultaneously approach the other forum. 10. That being the position, FA No.9 of 1993 shall stand dismissed and MA (F) 4 of 1996 and 5 of 1996 shall stand allowed. It is needless to say that as we have allowed these appeals and answered the reference as indicated above, the consequential things will follow.