JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected First Appeal No. 182/1998 (Bharatsingh & Anr. vs. Jaswantsingh & Ors.) filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 namely Bharat Singh and Nathusingh who were arrayed as defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. 2. This appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 against the judgment-and decree passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No.40-B/1996 decreeing the compensation upto Rs. 1,05,000/- holding that each defendant is liable to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/-. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that on 13.10.1991 in between 4-5 p.m. in Village Rogalia in the field of appellant Jairam, the wet Soyabean was being processed in the thresher machine. Plaintiff was employed as labour by Jairam and he was asked to operate the thresher machine, but, he put his inability to take out the grain of Soyabean from the thatches because the thatches were wet and it was impossible to take the grains from the wet thatches. The plaintiff further told that when the thatches of Soyabean would become dry then only the grains can be taken out but defendants did not care and they forced plaintiff/ respondent No.1 Jaswant Singh to process even the wet soyabean. Since the crop was wet, the thresher machine was not working properly and repeatedly it was being stopped, as a result of which the plaintiff was forced to take out the grains from the thatches manually by inserting his hand in the machine. While the plaintiff was taking out the grains of Soyabean from the thatches and his right hand was in the machine, at that juncture defendant No.1 namely Bharat Singh started thresher machine as a result of which plaintiff sustained serious injury and his hand turned into smithers. 4. The plaintiff was admitted in the hospital where his hand was amputated. During the entire treatment, plaintiff remained unconscious. The plaintiff was not even permitted by the defendants to contact his relatives. Ultimately the defendants by leaving the plaintiff as orphan snatched their hands from the treatment. After the discharge of the plaintiff from the hospital, he called his parents and other relatives and lodged the report in Police Station. A charge-sheet has also been filed against the defendants. The plaintiff was not even permitted by the defendants to contact his relatives. Ultimately the defendants by leaving the plaintiff as orphan snatched their hands from the treatment. After the discharge of the plaintiff from the hospital, he called his parents and other relatives and lodged the report in Police Station. A charge-sheet has also been filed against the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed present suit for compensation in the Trial Court. 5. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement while defendant No.3/appellant (Jawant Singh) filed separate written statement. 6. Learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that plaintiff/respondent No.1 is entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and same has been apportioned among defendants No.1 to 3 and directed that each defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest to the plaintiff. 7. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 Jairam and connected F.A. No. 182/1998 has been filed by Bharat Singh and Nathusingh (defendants No.1 and 2). 8. The common contention of all the appellants in both the appeals is that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for the simple reason that the same is barred under Section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "Compensation Act") and therefore judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court being without jurisdiction be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 9. Inter alia, Shri M.I. Khan learned Counsel appearing for appellant inconnected F.A.No.182/1998 submits that appellant No.2 Nathusingh (defendant No.2) has no role in the present episode and therefore learned Trial Court has illegally fastened the liability to pay compensation on him. 10. On the other hand Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent argued in support of impugned judgment. 11. Having heard learned counsel for parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed and connected First Appeal No. 182/ 1998' deserves to be allowed in part. 12. So far as the contention of maintainability of Civil Suit under Settion 19(2) of the Compensation Act is concerned, according to me, the same is required to be read in juxtaposition to Section 3(5) of the Compensation Act. 12. So far as the contention of maintainability of Civil Suit under Settion 19(2) of the Compensation Act is concerned, according to me, the same is required to be read in juxtaposition to Section 3(5) of the Compensation Act. Under this provision option is given to claimant to enforce his claim for compensation either by instituting a suit in the Civil Court for damages in respect of inquiry against employer or to institute a claim for compensation in respect of injury before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. However, he cannot avail both the remedies. 13. The Orissa High Court had an occasion to deal the aforesaid point in Subasini Panda and Others vs. State of Orissa and Others, 1984 A.C.J. 276, wherein, it has been held that it is the choice of the workman to choose the forum either to file claim case under Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicle Act and if the claimant has chosen the forum under the Motor Vehicle Act, his claim cannot be dismissed. The same view has been taken by Allahabad High Court also in Smt. Kalawati vs. Balwant Singh and Another, AIR 1985 All 124 . Thus, I am of the view that Civil Court was having jurisdiction and if the claimant/plaintiff has chosen the forum of Civil Court it cannot be said that his claim is not maintainable in the Civil Court and is maintainable only under the Compensation Act. Hence, the said argument is not accepted. 14. On going through the testimony of plaintiff this Court finds that there is no role assigned to Nathusingh. Merely because it has come in his testimony that Nathusingh was present when the incident occurred, I am of the view that the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on him although the thresher machine was owned by him. Appellant No.1 Bharatsingh (defendant No.1) of F. A. No. 182/1998 is the son of appellant No.2 Nathusingh (defendant No.2) of that appeal. From the pleadings and evidence placed on record it is proved that appellant of this appeal Jairam (defendant No.3) took the thresher machine from defendants No.1 and 2 and on his insistence the plaintiff was processing the thatches of Soyabean. From the pleadings and evidence placed on record it is proved that appellant of this appeal Jairam (defendant No.3) took the thresher machine from defendants No.1 and 2 and on his insistence the plaintiff was processing the thatches of Soyabean. It has also come in the evidence of plaintiff that defendant No.1 Bharat Singh as well as appellant Jairam both were insisting plaintiff to take out the grains manually and it has also come in the evidence that when the hand of the plaintiff was inside the thresher machine, the defendant No.1 Bharat Singh started the machine resulting into serious injury sustained by plaintiff in his right hand which was lateron amputated during the period when he was undergoing the medical treatment. Since the thresher machine was taken by Jairam from defendants No.1 and 2 and he employed the plaintiff to take out the grains from Soyabean from the said machine for the wages, I am of the view that relationship between defendant No.3 Jairam and plaintiff was of master and servant. Because, defendant no.1 Bharat Singh was insisting plaintiff to take out the grains manually and he put on the machine when the hand of plaintiff was inside the machine, in these circumstances, I am of the view that defendant No.1 Bharat Singh is also liable to pay compensation. In these state of affairs defendants No.1 and 2 namely Bharat Singh and Jairam are liable to pay compensation amount Rs. 1,05,000/- with 6% interest as awarded by learned Trial Court. Let each of the defendants shall pay Rs.52,500/- alongwith 6% interest to the plaintiff. 15. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.3000/- if pre-certified. However, F. A. No. 182/1998 is hereby allowed in part and it is hereby held that appellant No.2 Nathu Singh is not at all liable to pay any compensation however the appeal of Bharat Singh stands dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.2000/- if pre-certified. The decree of learned Trial Court is accordinalv modified.