Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2002 in I.A.No.45/2002 in W.C.No.1/2001, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. 2. So far as R.5 is concerned, notice has been sent to the correct address, but it has been returned with an endorsement 'no such addressee' and therefore, it is only desirable to conclude that the notice effected is sufficient, since for the correct address the service has been caused. Since, the Insurance Company is prosecuting the case on behalf of R.4, for the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, no notice is emphasised, being a formal party. 3. The subject matter has arisen out of a claim application filed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 claiming compensation on the death of one A.Ganesan in the accident and the Insurance Company having become aggrieved of an order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No. 45 of 2002 dated 22-8-2002 in the above W.C.No. 1 of 2001, has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on grounds that the lower Court ought to have allowed the I.A. dismissing the W.C. Claim as not maintainable in view of the M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 has also been filed by the parties on the one and the same cause of action claiming compensation in that forum also, which is pending before the Court of M.A.C.T. and Second Additional District Judge, Madurai, wherein, the petitioners are the widow and the minor children. The parents have also been impleaded as respondents and therefore, dual proceeding initiated both in M.C.A.T. and W.C. Cannot sustain and hence, seeking dismissal of the W.C.No.1 of 2001, pending on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai the petitioner Insurance Comany has filed the above I.A. and the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation having remarked that the petitioners in W.C. Proceeding were not parties to the proceeding of the M.C.O.P. pending before the M.A.C.T. and second Additional District Judge, Madurai, has dismissed the said I.A. 4. The learned counsel would point out that two of the three petitioners in W.C. are also parties to the M.C.O.P. Proceedings, who are the parents of the deceased and they are petitioner Nos. The learned counsel would point out that two of the three petitioners in W.C. are also parties to the M.C.O.P. Proceedings, who are the parents of the deceased and they are petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the W.C. Proceeding and the first petitioner therein, is the brother of the deceased, who is inconspicuous, so far as the claim is concerned. However, the learned counsel would strongly feel that it is not desirable to permit two different proceedings one by the wife and children and the other by the parents and brother of the deceased and therefore, would seek to file the said I.A. before the W.C. for dismissing the same. 5. A close perusal of the order passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, dated 22-8-2002 would reveal that applicants in W.C. claims are not parties in the M.A.C.T. claim filed by the wife of the deceased and that the applicants in W.C. claim want to pursue their claim only in W.C. Forum and that claiming compensation by filing a petition in the particular forum is the fundamental rights of the parties and would dismiss the application filed by the petitioner herein. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out such right is only subject to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which is dealing with the option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases and the said Section reads: "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 to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both". Therefore, it is clear that any person could either claim compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the M.A.C.T. forum, but not under both. 7. Therefore, it is clear that any person could either claim compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the M.A.C.T. forum, but not under both. 7. Proviso to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 reads: "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". On such arguments the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Insurance Company would pray to the relief extracted supra. 8. Though under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 it is contemplated that either under the Workmen Compensation Act or before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, a person, who is entitled to claim compensation from out of any accident occurred on road accidents, proviso to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 contemplates that while filing the claim application all the legal representatives of the deceased shall jointly file the application and those who are not willing to join shall be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. 9. But the situation that is met with in the above civil revision petition is different, wherein the wife and the children of the deceased have instituted proceeding claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal impleading the parents of the deceased also as respondents, since they have not co-operated with the petitioner to file a joint application. But on the contrary the parents of the deceased, who are the respondents in the M.C.O.P. have independently filed application seeking compensation along with their son, that is the brother of the deceased and it is only seeking to dismiss this W.C. initiated by the parents and brother of the deceased under the Workmen Compensation Act before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, one of the respondents in the M.C.O.P. i.e., the Insurance Company has filed the application in I.A.No. 45 of 2002 before the Workmen Compensation Forum, which came to be dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai on ground that the petitioners therein have got their fundamental right to choose any of the forums, thus ultimately dismissing the said application filed by the Insurance Company. Hence, in the above circumstances this Court has to pass its order deciding the question, whether both these forums could be permitted to carry on both the proceedings initiated by different parties, claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased and whether, it is desirable to grant the relief sought for by the Insurance Company, who is the respondent in both the proceedings as it is sought for in the above civil revision petition to set aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, and grant the relief dismissing the Workmen Compensation proceeding initiated by the parents and brother of the deceased. 10. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and with no representation made on the part of the respondents, the short question that falls for consideration and decision is whether the different proceedings initiated by different parties could be allowed to continue and whether it is desirable in the interest of justice. 11. 11. No doubt, no parallel proceedings could be allowed by different forum as it is in this case one claim application filed by one party before the M.A.C.T. and the other by the other party before the Workmen Compensation Forum, either of which could be done in law as provided for, but whether it is desirable to permit both the proceedings to carry on with the enquiry, so as to pass two orders on one and the same subject, one determining the rights of one set of parties and the other regarding the other set of parties, in which event there is every possibility for conflicting decisions to be arrived at by both forums, not only regarding the occurrence and as to whose fault the accident occurred, but also regarding the rights of each party in each application and pertaining to the apportionment, if the compensation is awarded and therefore, though both parties have their own right to initiate proceedings according to their convenience as it has been done in the case in hand, which cannot be denied, but at the same time, this Court is of the view that to avoid conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings at the cost of exchequer and time of everyone engaged in the proceedings and for better appreciation by one and the same Presiding Officer, it is always desirable to permit one of the two forums to hold the proceeding. Now again, the question arises as to which of the two forums in which proceedings have been initiated by the two factions of the legal representatives of the deceased, whether it is the proceeding initiated before the M.A.C.T. by the wife and children of the deceased or the proceeding initiated before the Workmen Compensation forum by the parents and brother of the deceased should be permitted to continue. 12. 12. This Court is of the view, that it is the M.A.C.T. before which all the legal representatives of the deceased are parties i.e., the wife and children and the parents as petitioners and respondents respectively along with the other respondent No.4, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, which has been filed in its entirety and a comprehensive decision could be arrived at by the said forum, since all these parties are not parties before the Workmen Compensation, but only the parents and brother of the deceased and not the wife and children who are the main claimants and therefore, it is not desirable to permit the said forum to proceed with the enquiry, pending disposal of the M.A.C.T. 13. Yet another point to be considered is the first respondent in Workmen Compensation case is the brother of the deceased, who is not a party to the proceeding initiated in the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 and in fact, he is not the necessary party in such proceedings for compensation at all. However if he has got any legal right to claim, he could make out an application to implead himself as a party to the proceeding before the M.A.C.T. in M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 and the said forum shall consider the genuineness of the application and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. 14. The second and third petitioners in the Workmen Compensation proceeding being already respondents to the M.C.O.P.No. 1464 of 2001 proceeding, they shall prosecute the said proceeding and for proper remedy the M.A.C.T. forum shall give such opportunities for them to exhaust their remedies and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law. 15. Till such time, that the proceeding initiated and pending in M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 is decided in the manner aforementioned and in accordance with law, it is only desirable to stay all further proceedings in W.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, and the same is ordered accordingly. 15. Till such time, that the proceeding initiated and pending in M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 is decided in the manner aforementioned and in accordance with law, it is only desirable to stay all further proceedings in W.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, and the same is ordered accordingly. In result, (i) the above civil revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed, subject to the above observations and directions; (ii) the proceeding pending before the Workmen Compensation forum in W.C.No. 1 of 2001 is stayed, pending disposal of the M.C.O.P.No.1464 of 2001 before the M.A.C.T., Madurai; (iii)consequently, C.M.P.NO.17099 of 2002 is closed; (iv)there shall be no as to costs.