IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Doted t. his tho 7 day of Decew her 2C) I I Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE fLN.NAGAMOHAN DAS QS V BETWBBN: The Divisionai Controller, RSRTC. Bellarv. Preseitlr represented by The Chief Law Officer. NEKRTC. Eij Office. Gulbura. AppeiIanr (Br Sri. Raw S Hosamani. AcIvoca.te T. Ramappa S/o Sanna Durgappa, Age: 46 yea.rs, 0cc: Not Known, R/ o Muruga.na.ha 16 Village, HB.H lli, Tq: .Bellary District. 2 11 Huligem..ma. W / o 11 Ra.m.appa Vs 47 (Al ( S Oi H B. H Vii. Tq: E;e11or District. 171 si .t (: A ., :2: R/o 4th floor, Jagruti Residency, East Maridaapali. Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 4. MIs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., By its Branch Manager, Bellary. Respondents (By Sri. Laxman B. Mannodar, Advocate for R4) Ri -3- notice served) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2007 in MVC No.696/2007 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal VIII, Hospet. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award datcd 13.11.2007 in MVC 696/2007 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Cum Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal VITT at Kospet in so far as it relates to fastening the liability on the appellant. 2. Third respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the same was insured with the fourth respondent insurance company. The third respondent had leased the bus in question in favour of the appellant. When the bus was under the control of the appellant, the same met with an accident resulting death of daughter of first and second respondents. The Tribunal held that leasing of the vehicle by the third respondent to the appellant is contrary to the terms of insurance policy and also Sec. 147 of the MV Act. Therefore the Tribunal held that the fourth respondent insurance company is not liable to answer the claim and consequently fastened the liability on the appellant. 3. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in V.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum in Civil Appeal No.5901/2011 disposed on 25/7/2011. In this case, the Apex Court held that even after hiring of the bus, insurance policy 4 continues to opetate and insurance conipanv is liable to ansci tic him In un of this dictum of thc kpcc court tIc ppeal is ‘tbIc to be dlo’Lwd nd ftc impugned vard ‘s to be modified. 4 Pot the reasons stated abo4e, the follouunç ORDER i) Appeal is hereb) ailoed ii) Thc impugned Judgment and Awird dated 13’ November 2009 in MW No.b96/2OO is hcreb modified fastening the iiabiIit on responcknt No.4 and thcy are directed to pn ti compensation )ricic I c rc’inpl3