RAM RATTAN Vs. JAGDISH SHARMA JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are not disputed in this case. Vijay Kumar, son of the appellant was a driver with respondent No. 1. While driving a car, he met with an accident and died. Ajay Kumar, the son of respondent No. 1 was also travelling in the said car and he also died in the same accident. Vijay Kumar was getting Rs. 250 per month as salary from the respondent No. 1. The appellant filed a claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The appellant also filed a petition before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Commissioner dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 110-A A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petition is not maintainable.

(2.) Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant is entitled to claim compensation under both the Acts. He further submitted that if the appellant is held entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, then the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. will be adjusted. He pointed out that this is the intention of the legislature.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: