Rakesh Tiwari, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The instant F.A.F.O. is preferred by the claimants Smt. Khursheed and others challenging the judgment and award dated 7.8.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P.No. 165 of 2006, Smt. Khursheeda & Others Vs. Harihar Prasad Tiwari & another. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.1.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. when Bengali @ Noor Mohammad was going on crane No. UP 78BN-6616, it turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Bengali @ Noor Mohammad who was aged about 45 years and claimed to be earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, died in the said accident. F.I.R. was lodged at G.D. No.36 on 7.1.2007 in respect of the accident aforesaid. The claimants filed a claim petition on 14.2.2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/- which was contested by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: @ Hindi @ The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the claim petition of the claimants on the perverse finding of it being instituted in wrong forum. It is stated that when the said accident occurred the claimants had a choice either to invoke jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen Compensation Act, as has been held in case of State of J & K and others V s. Smt. Jali and others, 2007 (4) T.A.C.683 (J&K). He further submitted that the Tribunal has given perverse finding on the point of jurisdiction of the claim petition not being under the Motor Vehicles Act which is against Section 167 of the said Act. It is stated that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and has decided the case against the law laid down by this Court as well Apex Court, regarding the issues and that the judgment and award is against the weight and evidence. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:- 1. 2013 (1) TAC 464 (All), New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (Kumari) and others. 2. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:- 1. 2013 (1) TAC 464 (All), New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (Kumari) and others. 2. 2007 (4) TAC 683 (J & K), State of J & K and others Vs Mst. Jali and others. 3. 2004 (1) TAC 718 (Bom), Sharad Ganpat Deshmukh and others Vs. Smt. Kunda Ashok Polade and others. 4. 2004 (2) TAC 506 (Ker.), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena. 5. 2003 (1) TAC 112 (All), United India Insurance Company LTD. Vs. Smt. Chandra Kali and another. 6. 2001 (1) TAC 256 (Pat.), Mst. Parmada Devi Vs. Shri. Bishwanath Singh and others. 7. 2001 (3) TAC 7 (Pat.), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meena Devu and another. After appreciation of the record and evidence, the Tribunal decided issues holding that the accident occurred as crane No. UP 78BN-6616 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner; that the said offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.2, the National Insurance Company Ltd ; that its driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence for driving the crane and that as Bengali @ Noor Mohammad was an employee on the crane, as such his claim would lie before the Employees Compensation Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act,1923 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal also observed that no ruling or case laws has been submitted by the appellants in support of their case that the proper forum for filing the claim with regard to the offending crane would be under the Motor Vehicles Act. As regards forum of choice by the claimant is concerned, it has rightly been held by the Tribunal that since the workman was employee, hence his claim would lie under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is only where two remedies are available that choice of forum can be exercised but where two separate forums are available for persons of different categories then choice of forum will not be available. It is only where two remedies are available that choice of forum can be exercised but where two separate forums are available for persons of different categories then choice of forum will not be available. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of jurisdiction that claim petition was not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act has no force, hence Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act only provides for choice of forum and fair compensation under the said Act. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence holding that the petitioners had chosen a wrong forum before Tribunal and ought to have filed his case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As regards the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bareilly Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (Kumari) and others (Supra) it was not disputed by the Insurance Company that the tractor on which two laborers were sent by the company to bring the sugarcane was not insured with the Insurance Company on the fateful day. The case of the Insurance Company was that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and Insurance policy covers the risk of paid driver of the tractor only and not other employees. Therefore, the facts of this case are different from the instant case. Similarly in the case of Nand Ram and others Vs. Prem Pal and others, the Tribunal in this case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, referring Sections 168 and 173 of the Act, laid down principles for determination of loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. The Tribunal took notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month. In the case of Sardar Ganpat Deshmukh's case the above question of choice of forum was considered, collision between truck and staff car of the Electricity Board resulting in death of driver of staff car, claimants widow, children and father claimed compensation before the claims Tribunal and the Tribunal assessed total loss at Rs. 4,20,000/- but awarded Rs.2,10,000/- in view of contributory negligence of deceased, employer of deceased paid Rs.72,548/- as compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Contention that since heirs of deceased had received compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, Motor Accident Claims petition is not maintainable. 4,20,000/- but awarded Rs.2,10,000/- in view of contributory negligence of deceased, employer of deceased paid Rs.72,548/- as compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Contention that since heirs of deceased had received compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, Motor Accident Claims petition is not maintainable. The court in that case held that claimant did not file any claim before the Commissioner and mere receipt of amount without any claim being made under the Workmen's Compensation Act can not taken away right of heirs of deceased to claim compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Therefor, question of choice of forum in this case was not acceded by the Tribunal. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena cited by counsel for the appellants, the court has held that claim petition cannot be filed under Motor Vehicles Act and also under Workmen's Compensation Act. In the instant case, claim petition has been filed only under Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the facts of the present case do not apply and are clearly distinguishable. The question before the Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chandra Kali and others was whether the Insurance Company was liable or not in place of the employer even if the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle. It held that it is substantial question of law and condition precedent for filing appeal under Sections 3 and 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923. Therefore, the facts of this case are also different from the instant case at hand. Similarly, in paragraph 6 of the judgment rendered in Mst. Parmada Devi Vs. Sri Bishwanath Singh and others, the court while considering Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act held that the said Section bars more than one claim but leaves the claimant to choose the forum and if the amount is awarded under both the Acts it is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Devi and another, wherein the claimant claimed the compensation before the M.A.C.T. and the M.A.C.T. held that accident occurred without any fault of deceased. The question before the Tribunal was that whether the claim application before the M.A.C.T. was maintainable. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Devi and another, wherein the claimant claimed the compensation before the M.A.C.T. and the M.A.C.T. held that accident occurred without any fault of deceased. The question before the Tribunal was that whether the claim application before the M.A.C.T. was maintainable. This question was replied in affirmative holding that claimant was entitled to maintain a claim case before either one of the both forums i.e. claim before M.A.C.T. or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Both the cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. The appellants have exercised their choice of forum for claiming the compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is after appreciation of evidence on record the M.A.C.T. held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim which ought to have been preferred under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Employees Compensation Commissioner. Therefore, there is no question of choice of any forum involved in this case. The Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, therefore, it is for the appellants to file their claim before appropriate forum as indicated by the Tribunal. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________