IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.27986 of 2007 Between: S.Srinivasulu. … Petitioner AND A.P.S.R.T.C., reptd., by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the respondents: Smt.B.G.Uma Devi This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the main Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner hired his bus bearing registration No.AP 24 U 4500 to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No.1 herein, for being plied on the route Khammam-Kodad. The agreement, which was entered into on 7-5-2001 initially, was extended from time to time and the period of agreement expired eventually on 28-6- 2007. Till such time, the petitioner’s vehicle was under hire with respondent No.1. On 30-8-2001 the above-mentioned bus was involved in an accident resulting in injuries to one Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao. The said injured person approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam, by way of filing MATOP No.211 of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. As on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner, the Insurance Company and respondent No.1 were impleaded as parties to the said O.P., in which the Tribunal passed an award and decree on 26-2-2007 awarding compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. The said award and decree had become final, as no appeal has been filed by any of the parties. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of respondent No.1 in withholding a sum of Rs.80,145/- payable to the petitioner towards hire charges from 1-6-2007 to 28-6-2007 towards compensation awarded to the injured person in the above mentioned O.P. The said amount represented 50% of the decretal amount covered by the said O.P. At the hearing, Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed before me a copy of the order dated 28-12-2006 passed in Writ Petition No.26375 of 2006, which was filed by the petitioner in identical circumstances. This Court, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, held as under: “The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Corporation alone shall be made liable for payment of the sum awarded in O.P.No.728 of 2005 and therefore the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Corporation while referring to Clause 5(iv) of the Hire Agreement contended that the owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for all claims payable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder. Clause-5(iv) of the Hire Agreement runs as under: ‘The owner shall be responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations, like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M.V.Act 1988 Rules and APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents’. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KAILASH NATH KOTHARI – AIR 1997 SC 3444 - while declaring an identical clause as against public policy, held as under: ‘The expression owner must include, in a given case, the person who was actually in possession and control of the vehicle and under whose directions and commands, the driver was obliged to operate the vehicle. To confine the meaning of ‘owner’ to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer, not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in a case of an accident. The liability of the owner is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident’. Following the above decision in similar circumstances, the action of the respondent- Corporation in withholding the hire charges was held arbitrary and illegal. In the circumstances, the action of the impugned proceedings dated 2-11-2006 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside; and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs”. Sri Padmanabha Rao, lerarned Counsel representing Smt.B.G.Uma Devi learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, did not dispute that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is identical and the parties are also common to the above mentioned Writ Petition disposed of by this Court. Following the said order in Writ Petition No.26375 of 2006, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to allowing of the main Writ Petition, WPMP No.36604 of 2007 is closed. -------------------------- ---------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27-3-2008 MNR