P. Yellaiah and Others Vs. the Executive Engineer (Pwd) (Randb) National Highway Suryapet Division and Another

.....that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - which was already confirmed by this court on 17-8-1988. the beneficial legislation like this, where section 28a was incorporated by amending act, 68/84 on the touch-stone of article 14 of the constitution, the same has to be liberally construed. 6-12-1988 has to be taken into consideration and considering the same, section 28a application is well within time......the award passed for the similarly situated lands under the same notification.2. mr. r. narasimha reddy, the learned government pleader strenuously contends that o.p. no. 4/76 was decided on 31-3-1981 and as such, the same has to be construed as the date of award as contemplated under section 3(d) of the land acquisition act. if that is the only factor, i have got to accept his contention and straightway dismiss the writ petition. but, some of the claimants in o.p. no. 4/76, who were set ex parte have filed a petition under la. no.427/88 invoking the provisions of order 9 rule 13 to set aside the order and the same was allowed. restoring the claim, the court of subordinate judge, nalgonda has passed an award on 6-12-1988 enhancing the compensation on the analogy of other claimants in the said o. p. which was already confirmed by this court on 17-8-1988. the beneficial legislation like this, where section 28a was incorporated by amending act, 68/84 on the touch-stone of article 14 of the constitution, the same has to be liberally construed. when there are two references ordered, one earlier on 31-3-1981 and the latter on 6-12-1988, in a case of this nature, the later date i.e. 6-12-1988 has to be taken into consideration and considering the same, section 28a application is well within time.3. in the circumstnces, this writ petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to re-determine the compensation in exercise of his powers under section 28a of the land acquisition act on the analogy of the award, passed by the court of subordinate judge, nalgonda in o. p. no. 4 of 1976, dated 6th december, 1988 in the case of the claimants, r. lachaiah & r. poshaiah therein. the 3rd respondent shall make this exercise within four months from the date of the receipt of this order.4. the writ petition is allowed to theextent indicated above. no costs.5. petition allowed.