No Double Dipping Under Two Compensation Laws: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Second Claim Under Workmen’s Compensation Act After MACT Award

“Section 167 Mandates One Election, Not Two Bites at the Cherry – Courts Cannot Be Bargaining Forums for Enhanced Compensation”, In a significant ruling Rajasthan High Court held that a claimant who has already received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot maintain a successive claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the same accident. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed both appeals filed by the insurer and categorically quashed the subsequent awards passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners (WCC), terming the dual claims an abuse of process of law.

The Court ruled that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act contains a “statutory bar” that “does not permit a claimant to avail remedies under both statutes for the same accident”. Once a party consciously elects one forum, they are “estopped by conduct” from invoking the other. The principle, rooted in the doctrine of election and estoppel, was applied with full force, backed by binding Supreme Court precedent.

“The Claimant Has to Choose – Either the MACT or WCC, But Not Both”: Court Applies Supreme Court Rulings in Mastan and Bidami

The respondents, having first filed compensation claims before two separate Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) in Bundi and Jaipur and having received compensation pursuant to awards dated 18.03.2011 and 04.11.2004, subsequently filed new claims before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners for the very same accidents. These petitions resulted in fresh awards in their favour—Rs. 4,11,900/- with 12% interest and Rs. 2,95,590/- with interest—delivered on 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 respectively.

Justice Dhand rejected the respondents’ argument that the claims were distinguishable—one under the Motor Vehicles Act against the vehicle owner and another under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the employer—holding:

“The nature of liability does not dilute the statutory bar under Section 167. It is the identity of the accident and the cause of action which governs the applicability of the doctrine of election, not the identity of parties.”

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, AIR 2006 SC 577 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bidami, SLP (C) No. 1271 of 2010, where the Apex Court clearly held that Section 167 bars successive or simultaneous claims under both statutes.

Quoting Mastan, the Court reiterated:

“Section 167 of the Act gives a claimant even under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the right to invoke the provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act… but a claim cannot be maintained under both the enactments. The claimant has to elect before adjudication. Once the claim is pursued under one statute, recourse to the other is barred.”

“Adjustment of Compensation Between Forums Not Permitted – This Isn’t a Market for Bargaining More”

The Court dismissed the respondents' plea that the second claim could be justified by adjusting the compensation already received under the MACT award. Justice Dhand categorically rejected this:

“Courts cannot be treated as bargaining forums, and claimants cannot approach two different forums merely to secure higher compensation. If they feel compensation is insufficient, the remedy lies in appeal—not by opening another statutory door after the first one has closed.”

This observation was particularly pointed, as the Court noted that not only did the claimants receive full compensation under the MACT awards, but their second set of claims was filed and awarded without even disclosing the earlier payments.

“Doctrine of Election Is Not a Mere Rule of Procedure – It’s a Binding Estoppel”: Court Condemns Successive Forum Shopping

The Court found that the second set of claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act filed in WCC Case No. 10/2011 and WCC Case No. 185/2009 were barred by Section 167 and further stated:

“Such successive claims are not only legally impermissible but also amount to gross abuse of the process of law. The claimants had already elected their remedy. The subsequent claim petitions were not maintainable and stand quashed.”

In line with this finding, the Court directed the claimants to refund the compensation received under the WCC awards with usual interest to the insurance company “forthwith, without delay.”

Bar Under Section 167 is Absolute – Claimants Cannot Keep Both Hands in Two Statutory Pockets

Allowing both appeals, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the exclusive nature of remedies under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A claimant may pursue compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act—but not both. Once a party elects a forum and obtains compensation, any further attempt to approach another forum for the same cause amounts to legal misconduct.

The impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011, passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners in Bundi and Jaipur respectively, were accordingly set aside, with a direction to return the amounts received under them.

Date of Decision: January 28, 2026