THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.249 of 2000 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.No.18 of 1995. Challenge by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. to the order passed by the Tribunal below is on the ground that the Tribunal below erroneously fastened the liability on it along with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Suryanarayana, who is driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. semi luxury bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 5685. On 15.08.1993, while the deceased was on his way driving the bus from Secunderabad to Draksharaman with passengers, at 8.30 p.m. at Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing No.HR 35 0175 driven by one Niranjan Singh came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the R.T.C. bus, though the deceased was diving the bus slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. Even according to the averments of the claim petition, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and not on the account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who was driving the R.T.C. bus. The Hayathnagar Police also registered a case against the lorry driver in Crime No.126 of 1993. P.W.2 was the conductor in the same bus at the relevant time and he is an eye-witness to the accident. He had categorically stated before the Tribunal below that on observing the lorry, the deceased severed the bus to the extreme left side, but the lorry driver, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, was unable to control the lorry and ultimately dashed the bus at the driver’s side. Due to the said impact, there was a big jolt and steering of the bus pressed into the abdomen of the deceased, who omitted the blood and died on the spot in his seat itself. Basing on the above stated facts and evidence, the Tribunal below gave a clear finding that the accident was wholly on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 35 0175. Therefore, according to the finding of the Tribunal below, the deceased who was driving the R.T.C. bus was not at all responsible for the accident. However, the Tribunal below ultimately held that all the respondents therein were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal below basing on its own findings ought to have exonerated the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. (third respondent before the Tribunal) from the liability to pay compensation. Since the Tribunal below had erroneously held that the appellant – A.P.S.R.T.C. was also liable to pay compensation, the said conclusion, being contrary to the findings reached by it, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside in this appeal. In the result, it is held that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. (third respondent before the Tribunal) is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. If the compensation amount was already paid by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C., it is entitled to recover the said amount from respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein (respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal) without instituting a separate suit. The appeal is accordingly is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 02nd June, 2010 GHN