BACK TO MVA INDEX
MVA 1988 (Amended 2019)ORIGINALChapter VIII
Section 167
Option Regarding Claims for Compensation in Certain Cases
Claims Tribunals
Fine: N/ACompoundable: N/AEndorsement: No
BARE ACT PROVISION
Legal Text
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 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 of this Act claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.
Simplified Explanation
Section 167 addresses a common situation where a worker is injured in a vehicle accident in the course of employment — creating overlapping entitlements under both the MVA (MACT compensation based on third-party liability) and the Employees' Compensation Act 1923 (employer's liability for work injuries). The claimant must elect which remedy to pursue — they cannot claim under both simultaneously. This election is important strategically: MACT claims are typically more generous (especially for higher-income workers) and are unlimited in quantum; Employees' Compensation Act claims use a statutory formula that may yield less for high earners but is sometimes faster and more certain. A widow of a construction worker killed by a vehicle on site must choose — and the choice of MACT is almost always financially superior for non-trivially-injured victims.
Historical Context
The election principle prevents unjust enrichment through double recovery and creates a framework where the specific facts of each case determine the optimal remedy.Critical Changes
Employees' Compensation Act 1923 (formerly Workmen's Compensation Act) — same election principle.
MACT generally preferred for higher compensation potential.
Practical Scenarios
"A delivery driver injured in an accident while making deliveries — can choose MACT claim or Employees' Compensation; MACT typically preferred for higher compensation."
Common Queries
No — Section 167 requires the claimant to elect one remedy. They cannot claim under both the MVA/MACT and the Employees' Compensation Act. MACT claims are typically more generous for higher-income workers.