Judgment :- Claim petitioners in the claim Petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Dharmapuri are the Revision petitioners. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. 3. The only question that arise for consideration is : Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not? 4. Learned Judge presiding over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Dharmapuri has disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to file the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation on the ground that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question with reference to the compensation by virtue of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 and that therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned forum to decide the issue. 5. Having regard to the provision under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2000(3) Supreme 698 , (Rula Devi & Anr VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) this Court is of the considered view that not withstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being enforced, the claimant for claiming compensation in connection with any injury or death in a motor accident, can approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and if he chooses, he could also approach the forum under Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. Since the petitioners have chosen to file the petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that their claim application is legally sustainable. In view of such position of law, and having regard to the illegality committed by the learned Tribunal Judge, I am of the opinion that the impugned order has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law and on merits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that since evidence was let in by both sides before the Claims Tribunal, inasmuch as, the arguments had also been advanced on either side, the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the claim petitions at an early date. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that since evidence was let in by both sides before the Claims Tribunal, inasmuch as, the arguments had also been advanced on either side, the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the claim petitions at an early date. Hence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri is directed to dispose of the M.C.O.P.Nos.887/92 and 369/92 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Consequently , connected C.M.P. is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.