JUDGMENT : This is an appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 1402/2004 dated 15-12-2011. 2. On 13-8-2004, deceased Sandeep Gupta who was an employee of Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) was going in Jeep No. MH-31-H-1297 from Nagpur towards Chandrapur. One offending truck bearing No. MH-34-A-47-47 came in high speed from opposite direction. Driver of said truck could not control it and gave dash to the jeep of deceased. Deceased Sandeep sustained severe injuries. He was admitted in the hospital. During treatment, he died on 1-9-2004. Police Station, Bhadrawati registered crime for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the truck driver. Legal representatives/claimants filed claim petition before the MACT, Nagpur against owner, driver and insurance companies. 3. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal come to the conclusion that driver of jeep and truck both were equally negligent for the accident and, therefore, both the owners, insurance companies of jeep and truck were held responsible for the payment of compensation. The respondent no. 1 (appellant herein) who was the owner of jeep was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 12,31,970/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,84,280/- paid by the respondent no. 1. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. owner and insurance company of the truck was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 16,16,250/. 4. The owner and insurance company not challenged the impugned judgment. Insurance company of the truck has deposited the amount of Rs. 16,16,250/- before the MACT. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, that amount is withdrawn by the claimants. 5. Heard learned counsel Ms. Wanjari holding for Shri Anilkumar for the appellant. She has submitted that claimants have received the amount of compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and, therefore, the claimants could not have filed claim petition against the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel has pointed out Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Learned counsel has submitted that the claimants have received the amount of Rs. 3,84,280/- as a full and final settlement and, therefore, impugned award passed against the respondent no. 1 is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel Ms. Pathade holding for Shri Mirache, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent nos. Learned counsel has submitted that the claimants have received the amount of Rs. 3,84,280/- as a full and final settlement and, therefore, impugned award passed against the respondent no. 1 is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel Ms. Pathade holding for Shri Mirache, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent nos. 1A to 1C has submitted that the claimants not claimed any amount of compensation before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. As per Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, two forums are given to claim the compensation by the employee. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, there must be claim by the claimants either before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act or the forum available under Motor Vehicles Act. There was no claim by the claimants before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act but the claimants have approached to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Heard Mrs. Thete, learned counsel holding for Shri Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. She has submitted that WCL has already paid amount of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, WCL and Insurance company of Jeep i.e. National Insurance Company are not responsible to pay compensation. 8. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as 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 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. 9. From the reading of Section 167, it is very clear that it is choice of the claimant to chose the forum. The claimant can approach to the Labour Court/Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but cannot file claim petition in both the Courts/forums. As per the learned counsel Ms. Pathade, the claimants not filed any claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, as per Section 167, there was no bar to file petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Learned counsel Ms. As per the learned counsel Ms. Pathade, the claimants not filed any claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, as per Section 167, there was no bar to file petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Learned counsel Ms. Wanjari has pointed out Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which shows the distribution of compensation after depositing of amount of compensation by the employer. Learned counsel Ms. Wanjari pointed out decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva & ors. [2013 LawSuit (SC) 108]. She has pointed out paragraph no. 13 and 14 of the judgment. Those paragraphs are reproduced below. [13] Even though the aforesaid determination, concludes the issue in hand, ambiguity if at all, can also be resolved in the present case, on the basis of the admitted factual position. The first act at the behest of the respondents claimants for seeking compensation on account of the death of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, was by way of filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30.5.2003. The aforesaid claim petition was the first claim for compensation raised at the hands of the respondents claimants. If the question raised by the appellant has to be determined with reference to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same is liable to be determined on the basis of the aforesaid claim application filed by the respondents claimants on 30.5.2003. The compensation deposited by the Port Trust with the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for payment to the respondents claimants was much later, on 4.11.2003. The aforesaid deposit, as already noticed above, was not at the behest of the respondents claimants, but was based on a unilateral “suo motu” determination of the employer (the Port Trust) under Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The first participation of Dayamavva Yalgurdappa, in the proceedings initiated by the Port Trust under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was on 20.4.2004. Having been summoned by the Workmen's Commissioner, she got her statement recorded before the Commissioner on 20.4.2004. But well before that date, she (as well as the other claimants) had already filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 30.5.2003. Having been summoned by the Workmen's Commissioner, she got her statement recorded before the Commissioner on 20.4.2004. But well before that date, she (as well as the other claimants) had already filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 30.5.2003. Filing of the aforesaid claim application under Section 166 aforesaid, in our view constitutes her (as well as, that of the other dependents of the deceased) option, to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The instant conclusion would yet again answer the question raised by the appellant herein, under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the same manner, as has already been determined above. [14] In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hereby affirm the determination rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, and the High Court in awarding compensation quantified at Rs. 11,44,440/- to the claimant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also, the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of Rs. 3,26,140/- (paid to the claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as, it awards compensation to the respondents claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures that, the respondents claimants are not allowed dual benefit under the two enactments. 11. In the present matter, the petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed on 17-9-2004. The appellant – employer suo motu deposited amount of Rs. 3,84,280/-before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The claimants/ respondent nos. 1A to 1C not applied before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. It appears that it was a private settlement between the appellant and claimant/wife of deceased. The letter was issued to the area manager by the wife of deceased. It is a natural conduct of the destitute person who lost her husband in accident to get the amount from his employer, that does not mean that she could not file application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has paid meager amount of Rs. 3,84,280/- and now claimed that it has paid the compensation. To avoid liability from payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the employer/appellant suo motu deposited the amount with the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The appellant has paid meager amount of Rs. 3,84,280/- and now claimed that it has paid the compensation. To avoid liability from payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the employer/appellant suo motu deposited the amount with the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. In view of the above cited decision, suo motu action of the employer cannot debar the legal heirs of the employee from filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The fact in the cited decision appears to be near about the same. In the present case, claimants/respondent nos. 1A to 1C filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 17-9-2004. 12. Exhibit No. 64 is dated 29/31.10.2004 addressed by Sub Area Manager of appellant to the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chandrapur in which it is submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,84,280/- is depositing by cheque. This document, Exhibit No. 64 clearly shows that it is the document after filing the claim petition dated 17-9-2004. Therefore, the option of the claimants that they chose the forum of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is perfectly legal and correct. 13. All the documents filed by the appellant clearly show that the claimants/respondent nos. 1A to 1C never applied before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. Even the amount of compensation paid by the employer is taken into consideration, then also, the Tribunal is right in awarding the compensation. Amount which is already paid by the employer i.e. appellant is already deducted from the total amount of compensation. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.