Radhakrishna Rao, J.Petitioners 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 302/1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Krishna at Machilipat-nam, are the appellants herein.

2. One Yerabarla Veneswara Rao, who was working as Rakshak in Railway Protection Force, died in an accident that took place on 19.4.1983 on Guntupalli -- Ibrahimpatnam Road. After his death, Union of India, South Central Railway (2nd respondent herein) has paid the amount due under the Workmens Compensation Act, voluntarily without any claim by the dependants. Subsequently, the amount awarded i.e. Rs. 23,100/- has been withdrawn by the dependents. The parents and wife of deceased filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act within the stipulated time. The Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 80,784/- with 6% interest, but however, rejected the claim on the ground that as compensation under Workmens Compensation Act has already been awarded, they are not entitled to claim u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act Against that order this appeal is filed.

3. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, contended that if the party out of the two remedies available avails one remedy and participates consciously in that remedy that is provided for it, then it is debarred from talking steps as regards the second remedy that is available thereunder. In this case admittedly, the claimants are not the persons who approached in the Workmens Compensation Act but it is only the Railways that have intimated the Commissioner and the Commissioner in his turn decided the amount as per the table that has been given under the itself. So, since they were not consciously requested that forum and availed that remedy but they are requesting compensation u/s 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act only. Then it Cannot be said that they are debarred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. u/s 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the person entitled to compensation "may claim" such compensation under either the Workmens Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act but not both, The words "may claim" clearly indicate that the person entitled to compensation must take a conscious decision and opt for compensation under one or the other statutes. Deposit of compensation money by a third party in discharge of his obligation under the Workmens Compensation Act can never tantamount to the option being exercised by the person entitled to compensation. Hence receipt of compensation money deposited by the employer in discharge of his obligation u/s of the Workmens Compensation Act without the appellants having made any claim for compensation under that statute cannot debar the appellants from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of Section 110-AA thereof. Such deposit of compensation money and receipt thereof by the dependents of the deceased will not amount to making a claim by the dependants of the deceased under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act.

4. The same view has been taken in Harivadan Maneklal Modi and Another Vs. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar and Others, and M. D. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd v. Geetha 1988 A.C.J. 251:11 (1987) ACC 1. Since from the facts it has been brought out that the dependents having claimed nothing under the Workmens Compensation Act, mere fact that they have withdrawn the amount of Rs. 23,100/- cannot be a ground to disallow their claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The order of the lower court is set aside and the appeal has to be allowed.

5. The Counsel for the respondents -- Railways contended when two forums have decided two amounts and the compensation awarded by one forum is withdrawn then the said amount has to be withdrawn from the higher amount that has been awarded by the other forum. Firstly, an amount of Rs. 23,100/- has been awarded under the Workmens Compensation Act as per the table given under the; another forum under the Motor Vehicles Act came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 80,784/- would be the reasonable compensation amount. If both the forums have arrived at different figures, the claimants are entitled for higher amount that has been awarded by one of the forums. So, the claimants in this case are entitled for Rs. 80,784/- in all as compensation and out of that amount, the compensation amount that has been awarded by the forum under the Workmens Compensation Act and withdrawn by the claimants respectively has to be deducted and they are entitled for the remaining compensation amount i.e. Rs. 57,684/-. The claimants are entitled for 12% interest p.a. on the remaining amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The apportionment of amount of compensation has already been done by the lower Tribunal and it stands.

6. In the result, the order of the lower Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs.