JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Matter is taken in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents. 2. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist. 3. As per undisputed facts of the present case, on 16.04.2000, some persons have booked vehicle bearing Registration No.U.P.34-C/0829 owned by Subodh Kumar Awasthi and Ashok Kumar Awasthi i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, the same has been given on heir driven by Shri Satish Kumar in the capacity of driver accompanied by one Shri Subodh Kumar Awasthi. Later on, the dead body of the Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Subodh Kumar Awasthi were received at Itaunza, District-Barabanki. 4. In view of the abovesaid facts, opposite party no.4/Smt. Bindeshwari Devi W/O late Shri Satish Kumar along with the son of the deceased filed a case under Workmen Compensation Act registered Case No.179 of 2002 for compensation of death of her husband/late Sri Satish Kumar, dismissed by judgment and order dated 21.07.2004 passed by Commissioner appointed under Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Thereafter, Smt. Bindeshwari Devi along with her sons Alok Kumar and Rahul who were minor filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No.307 of 2004 for compensation for accidental death of her husband/late Shri Satish Kumar in which the appearance has been put up by the revisionist/New India Assurance India Ltd. and a defence has been taken that in view of the provisions as provided under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. the said claim petition for compensation is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 6. After exchange of the pleadings between the parties, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had framed the issues and issue no.6 is in respect of maintainability of the claim petition on the aforesaid ground. 7. After hearing the parties concerned, by means of the order dated 06.12.2005, learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur thereby deciding the issue no.6 and held that the Motor Accident Claim Petition filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 is maintainable. 7. After hearing the parties concerned, by means of the order dated 06.12.2005, learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur thereby deciding the issue no.6 and held that the Motor Accident Claim Petition filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 is maintainable. The relevant finding given in this regard is as under : - "The learned counsel for the insurance company has further submitted that once the petitioner has lost case under workmen's compensation Act, then the petitioner is precluded from restoring to the other forum. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties of the W.C. No.179 of 2002 and the parties of present petition and matter in issue and ground of claim are different. Therefore, the decision of W.C. Case is not a bar in prosecuting the present case. Considering the submissions of both parties in this regard, it will be worth mention that though the parties of both the cases are same and the deceased is same but the grounds of claim and provisions thereof submitted by claimants are different. The claimants of W.C. Case no.179 of 2002 may not be precluded from prosecuting this petition. The point of determination and matter in issue will also be subject to evidence and merit. In the light of the observations made above, it is observed that the present petition is not barred by res-judicata due to W.C. Case No.179 of 2002. The present case is maintainable and liable to be proceeded. The factual and legal obsection shall be determined after evidence of the parties on merits." 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed by the revisionist. 9. Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, in nutshell, submits that the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Petition thereby deciding the issue no.6 inter alia stating that claim petition is not maintainable in respect of the fact that earlier claim petition filed by the said persons under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. has been dismissed on the same cause of action, is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, liable to be set aside. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the record. 11. As stated above, matter is taken in the revised list. 12. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondents. 13. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the record. 11. As stated above, matter is taken in the revised list. 12. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondents. 13. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under : - "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any persons 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." 14. While interpreting the said provisions, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan (2006) 2 SCC 641 has held as follows : - "On the establishment of a Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the victim of a motor accident has a right to apply for compensation in terms of Section 166 of that Act before that Tribunal. On the establishment of the Claims Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, stands ousted by Section 175 of that Act. Until the establishment of the Tribunal, the claim had to be enforced through the civil court as a claim in tort. The exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is taken away by Section 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 that Act, the option in that behalf being with the victim or his representative. But Section 167 makes it clear that a claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. But Section 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, insofar as the claimant is concerned. In other words, he has to select 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 principle 'where, either of the two alternative Tribunals are open to a litigant, each having jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, and he resorts for his remedy to one of such Tribunals in preference to the other, he is precluded, as against his opponent, from any subsequent recourse to the latter' (See R. v. Evans (1854) 3 EI & B1 363) is fully incorporated in the scheme of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, precluding the claimant who has invoked the Workmen's Compensation Act from having resort to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, except to the limited extent permitted therein. The claimant having resorted to the Wrokmen's Compensation Act, is controlled by the provisions of that Act subject only to the exception recognized in Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act." 15. Again, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dyamavva and others (2013) 9 SCC 406 . After taking into consideration the provisions as provided under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as Workmen's Compensation Act on the point in issue has held that once respondents/claimants has approached this Court for grant of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Subsequently, they are debarred from raising the grievances to get the compensation on the same cause of action under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. Subsequently, they are debarred from raising the grievances to get the compensation on the same cause of action under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. In the instant matter, from the material on record, it is not disputed rather admitted in respect of action arising out of the matter in issue, the respondent nos.2 to 4 earlier filed a case for compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act registered as W.C.No.179 of 2002, dismissed by order dated 21.07.2004 passed by Commissioner appointed under Workmen's Compensation Act. Thereafter, on the same cause of action, a claim petition bearing M.A.C. No.307 of 2004 filed for compensation has been filed by them under the provisions as provided under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not maintainable. 17. As per the position of law as stated above in regard to the provisions of 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the impugned order dated 6.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Court No.1), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in M.A.C. NO.307 of 2004 thereby deciding the issue no.6 regarding the claim petition that the claim petition filed by the claimants under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act has been dismissed is maintainable is not correct, liable to be set aside. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sitapur, in M.A.C. No.307 of 2004 is set aside.