Md. Mazhar Shaheed Vs. District Collector and ors.

.....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...........a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting to gift any open land to the extent of 4000 square yards besides masjid-e-albamajboor in sy.no. 653 of mahaboobnagar town in favour of the government minorities welfare department for construction of a urdu ghar-cum-shadikhana. it is also stated that the request for gifting of the land has not yet been considered and that the property of wakf institution cannot be sold or transferred except by following the procedure established under law.4. the entire wakf property is vested with the wakf board for the purpose of its maintenance and administration and cannot be alienated except in accordance with section 51 of the wakf act, 1995. in case if the property is transferred in contravention of section 51 of the act, the same can be recovered for the benefit of the wakf.5. in the instant case, there has been no transfer or gift of the property to the government and therefore is no question of constructing any shadikhana or urdughar on the land in question. therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to alienate/ transfer or gift the wakf property for construction of a urdughar/shadikhana or any other structure on the land of old edgah of veerannapet. in case there has to be any alienation/gift, it is needless to add that the respondents have to follow the procedure laid down in law and comply with the provisions of section 51 of the act.6. the writ petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. no. costs.