JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1923) arises from the order dated 10.01.2007 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Kutch in Workmen's Compensation (N.F.) case No. 23/2005 by which the learned Commissioner has inter-alia held and directed as follows:- The application of the Shri Babulal Daluram Jat(Chaudhary) towards compensation is allowed. The applicant to be paid the compensation of Rs. 5,55,000/- under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Free Translation) The learned Commissioner has also awarded interest @ 12% as well as penalty of Rs. 2,77,500/- to be paid to the claim amount (in the ratio of 30% and 20% between the owner and the insurer). Being aggrieved by the said order of the commissioner, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The appeal has been admitted by order dated 28.07.2008. 2. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared for the appellant. On behalf of the opponents, though served, no one has appeared and the appeal is not contested, either by filing counter affidavit or otherwise. Heard the learned counsel. 3. The principal contention, against the impugned order, is that the applicant had preferred the claim application praying for compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923 in accordance with the provisions under the Act of 1923 before the learned Commissioner and that therefore the learned Commissioner could not have exercised the jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicle Act and could not have directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,55,000/- under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Thakker, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the order is not sustainable in law, hence the award may be set aside and the case may be remanded for appropriate order as per the provisions of the Act of 1923. 4. On perusal of the available record, it comes out that one Mr. Babulal Daluram Jat (Chaudhary) had filed an application under the provisions of the Act of 1923 claiming that he was working as a driver with the opponent No. 1 Rajpal Roadlines limited. At the relevant point of time, on 07.07.2005 he was driving the motor tanker bearing registration No. HR-38-E-0784. While going from Gandhidham to Mundra, the tanker met with the accident and he suffered serious injuries. The Doctor assessed the disability at 95%. At the relevant point of time, on 07.07.2005 he was driving the motor tanker bearing registration No. HR-38-E-0784. While going from Gandhidham to Mundra, the tanker met with the accident and he suffered serious injuries. The Doctor assessed the disability at 95%. On such averments, he filed an application invoking provisions under Section 2(g)(l)(n) read with Section 3, 4-1(b)(c) and 4(A) and 12 of the Act of 1923. 5. The said application was contested by present appellant Insurance Company on various grounds. After considering the material on record, learned Commissioner, by the impugned order, allowed the application holding inter-alia that the applicant was entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,55,000/- under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and that he was entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% as well as penalty. 6. It is pertinent that learned Commissioner held that said amount is to be paid under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount under the said Act. Hence, the appeal. 7. On perusal of the record, it also appears that learned Commissioner has calculated the amount towards compensation that would be payable under the provisions of Act of 1923 and found that a sum of Rs. 5,31,288/- would be payable as per the Act of 1923. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner also calculated the amount which could be granted as per the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act (which the learned Commissioner found to the tune of Rs. 5,55,000/-) and then, after comparing the total amount of compensation, directed payment of Rs. 5,55,000/- being the higher amount out of the two amounts though payable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. 8. The appellant insurance company is therefore aggrieved by the award. 9. In this regard, before proceeding further it would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant provisions under the 1923 Act, viz. Sections 3, 4A and 19 of the 1923 Act which read thus:- Section 3 : Employer's liability for compensation. 8. The appellant insurance company is therefore aggrieved by the award. 9. In this regard, before proceeding further it would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant provisions under the 1923 Act, viz. Sections 3, 4A and 19 of the 1923 Act which read thus:- Section 3 : Employer's liability for compensation. - (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding [three] days; (b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death [or permanent total disablement] caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) to (iii)... (2)... (a) to (b) (2A)... (3) to (5)... (a) & (b)... Section 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, and interest thereon pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty; Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. (3A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub- section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependent, as the case may be. Section 19 : Reference to Commissioner.- (1) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman) or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner. (2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act. 9-A. At this stage reference may also be made to the provision contained under Section 20 and 22 so as to appreciate the issue on hand. Section 20 makes provision for appointment of Commissioner and inter-alia provides that State Government may by notification appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for such area as may be specified. Section 22 makes provision for submission of application claiming compensation. Section 20 makes provision for appointment of Commissioner and inter-alia provides that State Government may by notification appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for such area as may be specified. Section 22 makes provision for submission of application claiming compensation. The said Section 22 reads thus:- Section 22: Form of application.- (1) Where an accident occurs in respect of which liability to pay compensation under this Act arises, a claim for such compensation may, subject to the provisions of this Act, be made before the Commissioner. (1A) ... (2) & (3) ... 10.1. The Section inter-alia provides that where an accident occurs, in respect of which liability to pay compensation under the Act arises, the claim for such compensation may be made before the Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1923 (i.e. Section 20 of the Act), subject to the provision of this Act. 10.2. Reading of the said Section makes it clear that it refers to the liability to pay compensation which arises under the Act and it confers a right to claim compensation, subject to the provisions of the Act. 10.3. Hence, when the provisions under Section 19, 20 and 22 are read conjointly, it becomes clear that under the provisions of the Act only an application seeking compensation for which the liability arises under the Act of 1923 lies and such application has to be made before the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act of 1923 and it can be entertained and allowed according to and subject to the provisions of the Act of 1923. Differently put the Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1923 can decide, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act, only an application seeking compensation for which the liability arises under the Act. The said provision circumscribes the power of the Commissioner and that therefore in an application preferred (and being prosecuted) under the provisions of the Act of 1923, the Commissioner can decide it according to the provisions of the Act and cannot travel beyond the boundaries prescribed by the Act of 1923. The said provision circumscribes the power of the Commissioner and that therefore in an application preferred (and being prosecuted) under the provisions of the Act of 1923, the Commissioner can decide it according to the provisions of the Act and cannot travel beyond the boundaries prescribed by the Act of 1923. As can be seen from the said provisions, the learned Commissioner has been conferred with jurisdiction to determine and grant compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923 only and the learned Commissioner has no authority of law to issue directions in exercise of power available to the authority (i.e. the Tribunal) constituted under any other statute including the Motor Vehicles Act. An authority constituted under a special statute can exercise only that jurisdiction which is expressly conferred on it and cannot travel beyond the boundary prescribed by the Act. Thus, the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen Compensation Act would have no jurisdiction to award compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. 11. The only and limited exception is Section 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this context, a reference may be made to the provisions of Sections 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads thus : Section 143 : Applicability of Chapter to certain claims under Act 8 of 1923.- 12. The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140 and for this purpose, the said provisions shall, with necessary modifications, be deemed to form part of that Act. 13. By virtue of Section 143 the benefit under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is made applicable (with appropriate modification) in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from accident of the nature referred to in sub Section (I) of section 140 and for that purpose the said provision of the Motor Vehicles Act is applied to Act of 1923. 14. The provisions under the Act of 1923 also do not contemplate or provide for the process of first determining rate of compensation payable under two statutes and then to compare the amounts. 14. The provisions under the Act of 1923 also do not contemplate or provide for the process of first determining rate of compensation payable under two statutes and then to compare the amounts. The Act of 1923 also does not confer jurisdiction on the learned Commissioner to award such compensation which, upon comparison (i.e. upon comparison of compensation calculated separately under both Acts.) could be higher. 15. Besides the above mentioned provisions, the most vital provision which, in the facts of the case, is relevant and calls for special reference is Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus : Section 167 : Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - 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. 16-17. The said provision inter-alia provides that in case of death or bodily injury, a person entitled to compensation can make claim (without prejudice to the provision of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act) under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but, not under both Acts. 18. None of the provisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act or Motor Vehicles Act provide that even in a case where a person files a claim case under Act of 1923 and continues to prosecute i.e. elects to prosecute his claim application under the provisions of the Act of 1923, then also he would be entitled to receive higher or better compensation amount or compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act and/ or such compensation which is payable under and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act if, on comparison, it is found to be better or higher than the compensation amount payable under the Act of 1923(under which the application is filed). 19. 19. In absence of such provision the learned Commissioner was not justified in undertaking the process of calculating compensation as per the provisions under the two acts and then to find out which one is higher or better and then to award such amount which turns out to be higher. 20. The Commissioner acting under the Act of 1923 and exercising the jurisdiction under the said Act cannot, in respect of application filed under Act of 1923, take recourse to the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and in an application filed under the Act of 1923 Act a person cannot claim or cannot be awarded (provision of Chapter-X of Motor Vehicles Act being the exception made by the statute) compensation calculated and payable under and as per the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. Such direction and award is without jurisdiction and authority of law. Hence, it deserves to be set aside. 22. The impugned award is not sustainable on yet another ground also i.e. with regard to the direction requiring the Insurance Company to pay penalty. The legal position as regards obligation to pay additional compensation as and towards penalty is well settled. The said obligation can not be put at the door-step of the insurance company. The said direction also deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 23. Unfortunately for want of sufficient material and necessary evidence it is not possible for this Court to decide the parent proceedings on merit at this stage and/ or to quantify the rate of compensation payable under the 1923 Act. Thus, though this Court is conscious about the fact that ordinarily remand of the case to the trial Court should be avoided and despite being aware about the fact that the matter pertains to 2005, an order remanding the matter is inevitable for conducting the procedures in accordance with the Workmen Compensation Act and to pass appropriate order since, it is necessary to consider the matter as per the provisions of 1923 Act, more so because the appellant company disputes the calculation and quantification of compensation amount under the Act of 1923 also. 24. Hence, following order is passed: (a) The appeal is accepted and allowed. Impugned judgment is set-aside. 24. Hence, following order is passed: (a) The appeal is accepted and allowed. Impugned judgment is set-aside. (b) Matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner with the direction to decide the application in accordance with the Act of 1923 and to pass appropriate order after hearing concerned parties. (c) After receiving the matter learned Commissioner shall issue a fresh notice for hearing, intimating the date of hearing. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and shall pass appropriate order within 3 months. Learned advocate Mr.Thakker has submitted that the appellant Insurance Company has deposited the amount with the learned Commissioner. The said amount shall be invested, if already not invested, in a fixed deposit with Nationalised Bank with cumulative interest till the final order by the learned Commissioner. Mr.Thakker submitted that some amount might have been disbursed during the pendency of appeal. If that is so, then, only if the final order-award of the learned Commissioner for less amount then the deposited-invested amount, the insurance company may make an application but only after final award is made, for refund of the difference amount. It is clarified that any application claiming refund (or redeposit by the workmen) of the deposited/disbursed amount shall not be entertained before final award. It will be open for the Insurance Company to make an application to the learned Commissioner for necessary directions about the amount disbursed. 25. With above directions, appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.