1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 20.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu, in a claim petition, titled as, Anila Kumari & others v. Suresh Kumar & another, whereby an award of Rs. 3,84,280/-came to be awarded in favour of claimants and against the insurer-insurance company (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimants-respondents 1 to 5 are in lis right from 01.01.2001 and have entered into second round of litigation in order to get compensation because of the untimely death of one Raj Singh -husband of respondent no. 1, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of respondent no.5. He was a driver by profession and all the claimants were dependant upon him, thus have lost source of dependency on 08.10.2000 when, as alleged, he became the victim of bullets fired by Pakistani troops. 3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Raj Singh was a Driver by profession and was in the employment of respondent no.6, namely, Suresh Kumar. It is alleged that on the fateful day, i.e., 08.10.2000 he on the instructions of owner Suresh Kumar had taken a marriage party to Village Tareva in the Matador bearing registration No. JK02G/5847, which was hired by the said party. While coming from Village Tareva the deceased sustained bullet injuries on his chest allegedly fired by Pakistani troops and he succumbed to the same. The said incident took place during the course of employment of respondent no.6. Respondents-claimants being the dependants of the deceased laid a petition before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu for grant of compensation which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2003. Feeling aggrieved claimants-respondents 1 to 5 filed an appeal in this Court, the same came to be allowed vide order dated 12.10.2006, order of learned Commissioner was set aside and he was directed to decide the petition after recording evidence. The matter came up before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.11.2006 when notice was issued to the parties. Appellant as well as respondent no.6 caused appearance, thereafter respondent no.6 herein had chosen to remain absent and, accordingly, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. The matter came up before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.11.2006 when notice was issued to the parties. Appellant as well as respondent no.6 caused appearance, thereafter respondent no.6 herein had chosen to remain absent and, accordingly, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. Claimants-respondents 1 to 5 by leading evidence have succeeded in proving that the deceased Raj Singh had taken a marriage party in the vehicle in question as per the directions and instructions of owner Suresh Kumar and that the vehicle was hired by the marriage party. The deceased suffered bullet injuries in the firing which was allegedly made by the Pakistani troops on 08.10.2000 near the Line of Actual Control while coming out of Village Tareva. The claimants have also proved that they were dependant upon the deceased and the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- per month at the time of accident. Appellant and the employer Suresh Kumar failed to lead evidence, thus the averments led by the claimants have remained unrequited. Assistant Labour Commissioner after examining the entire, record held that the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month and granted Rs. 3,84,280/-as compensation, which appears to be just and proper while keeping in view the age of the deceased and the fact that the claimants have lost the source of dependency. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel of appellant argued that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2000/- per month despite of the fact that the appellant as well as employer have not led evidence and claimants have proved that the earning of the deceased was Rs. 4000/- per month. However, learned counsel for appellant argued that the defence which is available to the insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act) can be pressed into service by the insurer in order to contest the petition filed by the employee or his legal representatives before the Labour Court. The argument is devoid of any substance for the simple reason that the insurer had neither taken this plea in the memo of objections nor had proved the same. Second, the defence available to the insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act cannot be used as a defence in order to defeat the petition filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Second, the defence available to the insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act cannot be used as a defence in order to defeat the petition filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Those grounds can be taken by the employee provided the employee or his legal representatives could have invoked the jurisdiction in terms of Section 167 of the Act, which is reproduced 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." Thus, the claimants can apply for compensation in terms of Section 167 of the Act or as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. It is the option of the claimants. Viewed thus, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.