IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2801 of 2002 Between: National Insurance Co.Ltd. rep.by its Branch Manager Office at Warangal ..... APPELLANT AND Ravula Madhava Reddy and 5 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2801 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal in O.P.148/1996 dated 16.07.1999 in awarding compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the claimants payable by the driver, owner and insurer alone i.e. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the O.P. Respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the authorities of APSRTC. The driver and owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal below and the claim was contested by the Insurance Company as well as APSRTC alone. The Tribunal below held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AEO-4237, owned by the 2nd respondent herein, insured with the petitioner herein. Though in the appeal several grounds are taken but ultimately restricted to only one ground that the said bus was leased out in favour of APSRTC, and therefore the APSRTC is liable to pay the compensation along with owner and driver but not the insurance company. The Insurance Company is not disputing the quantum of compensation and the finding recorded by the Tribunal below that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. It is the case of the claimants that the offending bus was hired to APSRTC. On 27.01.1995 while the said bus was going to Jangaon, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in high speed and when crossed Venkiryala village, it dashed against the culvert and turned turtle, as a result 6 persons died and several injured. The claimant is one of the injured persons. As against the claim of Rs.2,61,000/-, the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs as the claimant sustained two grievous injuries and two simple injuries, as is evident from Ex.A2 wound certificate. There was no dispute that the bus was hired to the APSRTC. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on judgment in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Labbipet v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao[1] submits that APSRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation. In the said judgment this Court held that APSRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation, but not the Insurance Company, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailashnath Kothari[2], Godavari Finance Company v. Degala Satyanarayanamma[3] and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Deepa Devi[4]. In the instant case also there is no dispute that though the bus was insured with the Insurance Company it was hired to APSRTC. There is also no dispute that the bus was put to schedule as per the trip sheet fixed by the concerned APSRTC officials and the driver was under the control of hirer. In such a case, APSRTC alone would be liable to pay compensation. In that view of the matter, the appellant Insurance Company could not be made jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation amount. I am of the opinion that the owner, driver and APSRTC jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal below holding that the National Insurance Company who is the appellant herein is also jointly and severally liable along with owner and driver is set aside. However, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal below, whatever amounts deposited by the insurance company and withdrawn by the claimant shall not be recovered from the claimant and it is open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from APSRTC. If any amounts not withdrawn by the claimants are available and lying in the Tribunal, it is open for the Insurance Company to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, as above. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 15.07.2010 Dsr [1] 2009(3) ALD 53 [2] AIR 1997 SC 3444 [3] 2008(3) ALD 18 (SC) [4] 2008 ACJ 705 (SC)