1. In terms of order dated 4.4.2007 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act), an amount of Rs.4,07,700/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents (claimants). Then vide order dated 29.8.2007, application for re-call of the said order has been rejected. 2. Precise factual background of the case has to be noticed for appreciating the matter in its right perspective: 3. Deceased Ghulam Mohammad Khan Workman (employee of respondent No. 6) died in a road accident on 10.8.2005 when he was hit by the vehicle (Maruti Zen) bearing registration No. JK04-4094 while he was inspecting the site for the project of four laning of the National Highway at By-pass Budgam. 4. The respondents (claimants) filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. Same was taken up in the Lok Adalat on 02.08.2006 wherein an award of Rs.6,20,000/inclusive of interim relief was passed in favour of the claimants. 5. Claimants on 15.4.2006, concealing the fact of pendence of claim pe'titionei before the Tribunal, filed one more claim petition under the Workmen's Compen­sation Act and the Authority on the same cause and same accident warded tht compensation amounting to Rs.4,07,7000/which was to be paid by respondent No 5 therein (appellant herein). Subsequently re-call of the order was sought in view of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents did choose not to appear despite awaiting his appearance on 21.4.2011 and also on 22.4.2011 till 3.30 pm, so the case was considered in absence of the respondents. 7. The short question for consideration is as to whether claimants were entitled to the compensation, both under Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 8. The answer has to be in negative. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act provides that when a claim for compensation is instituted before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he cannot file suit for damages in the Civil Court. 8. The answer has to be in negative. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act provides that when a claim for compensation is instituted before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he cannot file suit for damages in the Civil Court. Said Sub-section is quoted as under:- "(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any Court of law in respect of any injury- (a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) If an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 9. Subsequent to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Section 167 of the Act is reproduced here-under:- "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 persons entitled to compensation may with­out prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both." 10. Conjoint reading of the two provisions is suggestive of the fact that the compensation cannot be granted twice for the same cause. 11. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a person shall be entitled to compensation under either of the two Acts but not under both. The claimants availed the remedy under Motor Vehicles Act and have been awarded compensation amounting to Rs.6,20,000/, therefore, their petition for compensation before the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act should not have been entertained but since the fact was concealed, therefore, was entertained and de­cided. The orders dated 4.4.2007 and 29.8.2007, passed by the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act, as called in question in the instant petition, are quashed. The orders dated 4.4.2007 and 29.8.2007, passed by the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act, as called in question in the instant petition, are quashed. The amount of compensation pursuant to impugned orders dated 4.4.2007 and 29.8.2007, if deposited with the Authority shall be paid back to the petitioner Company. 12. Petition accordingly succeeds. 13. Copy of the order be notified to both the Tribunal as well as to the Authority, alongside respective records as called shall be send back to the Tribunal and the Authority respectively.