Mannem Borramma Vs. Mannem Rukminamma

.....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...........- fees under section 151, civil p.c., where there has been an excess payment made by mistake or where on account of the mistake of the court, a party has been compelled to pay court -fees either fully or in part. a part from these instances, the court has no power to order refund under section 151, civil p.c., the present case falls within the scope of the decision in air 1934 mad 566 and therefore, this court has no power to grant a certificate for refund of the court-fees in as much as the petitioner did not make any excess payment of court-fees by mistake nor was he compelled to pay court-fees on account of the mistake of the court. this is a case where the petitioner wanted to file cross-objections and had done so by affixing the proper court-fee stamps but due to compromise with the other side, it appears the main appeal had been withdrawn rendering the cross-objections unnecessary.3. hence, the prayer to grant a certificate for refund of the court-fees paid on the memorandum of cross-objections is rejected. however, since the court-fee stamps are getting spoiled without being used for purposes of cross-objections the petitioner's remedy. if any is not by way of a petition of this nature but to apply to government for refund after the usual deductions in respect of spoiled stamp papers. as requested by the petitioner for this purpose alone a certificate will be granted to the petitioner that the cross-objections was not numbered or heard by this court that the cross-objections has been stamped with a court-fee of rupees 100/- and that the court-fee stamps have been defaced by the office of the high court in ht usual routine. the government may pass such orders as it deems fit after perusing this certificate. the memorandum of cross-objections which has now become unnecessary and need not be retained in this court will be returned to the petitioner for prosecuting his application with the government, if so advised.4. petition rejected.