Ankush Rao Vs. the Collector

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. 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......order1. heard arguments of parties. the facts which have given rise to this writ petition are briefly as follows:the petitioner had in his possession a 12-bore gun for which he held a licence under the arms act. on 13.3.1952, the collector of bhir informed the petitioner that the licence for the said weapon has been cancelled and that the petitioner should deposit the rifle together with the licence and ammunition at the police station. shri anisuddin ahmed, the learned advocate for the petitioner, argues that under section 13, arms act, authority has-been given for the officer concerned to cancel or suspend the licence with regard to the arms which were licensed but clause a of that section makes it incumbent upon the officer to record in writing the reasons for such a cancellation and that the licence can be cancelled only when it is deemed necessary to do so in the interest of the public peace. from a reading of the sub-section, it is clear that the licence can be cancelled when the officer deems it necessary to do so for the security of the public peace. we do not find such reasons recorded either in the report of the district superintendent of police dated 8.3.1952 nor in the reply dated 18.4.1952 sent by the collector of bhir to the registrar of this high court. both these writings state that the petitioner has misused his gun and therefore the licence should be cancelled and that the petitioner is not a good citizen, shri anisuddin ahmed further argues that the delivery of blows with the butt-end of the gun alleged in the report of the district superintendent of police is not admitted by the petitioner; but even conceding without admitting that he had done so, it is not a misuse of the gun.2. after reading the reasons recorded by the district superintendent of police and the explanation given by the collector, we are satisfied that the provisions of section 18-a have not been complied with by the cancelling authority. that authority should have clearly.....