Judgment :- A.K. Basheer, J. This reference has come up before us at the instance of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram, who has referred the following question to this Court for a decision under S.27 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. The question reads thus; “Whether for the same cause of action, a person can institute and proceed two applications simultaneously, one before the Hon’ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation as a third party and the other before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, as a workman, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923.” 2. We have perused the communication received from the Commissioner. We have heard Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel who assisted the court as amicus curie on a request made by us. 3. Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the answer to the above question lies in the provisions contained in S.167 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself, which is extracted hereunder. 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”. (emphasis supplied). 4. It is not necessary to elaborate much on this aspect since the above Section is self explicit. 5. Moreover, the above question is no more res integra in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mastan (2006 (1) KLT 853 (SC) = (2006) 2 SCC 641) and also in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ((2007) 13 SCC 446). In Mastan (supra) the Apex Court after referring to the provisions contained in S.167 of the Act stated thus: “The exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is taken away by S.167 of the Motor Vehicles Act in one instance, when the claim could also fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. Ltd. ((2007) 13 SCC 446). In Mastan (supra) the Apex Court after referring to the provisions contained in S.167 of the Act stated thus: “The exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is taken away by S.167 of the Motor Vehicles Act in one instance, when the claim could also fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. That section provides that death or bodily injury arising out of a motor accident which may also give rise to a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, can be enforced through the authorities under the Act, the option in that behalf being with the victim or his representative. But S.167 makes it clear that a claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. In other words, a claimant who becomes entitled to claim compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, because of a motor vehicle accident has the choice of proceeding under either of the Acts before the forum concerned. By confining the claim to the authority or the Tribunal under either of the Acts, the legislature has incorporated the concept of election of remedies, in so far as the claimant is concerned. In other words, he has to elect whether to make his claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The emphasis in the section that a claim cannot be made under both the enactments, is a further reiteration of the doctrine of election incorporated in the scheme for claiming compensation”. The question referred by the Commissioner is answered accordingly. The Reference is closed.