IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO REV. CMP.No.3951 of 2013 in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 Between : APSRTC, Rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC x Roads, Hyderabad and another …Review Petitioners/ Respondent Nos.4 and 5 Vs. Ganji Padma and 2 others …Respondents/ Respondent Nos.1 to 3 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Secunderabad. …Respondent/Appellant Counsel for the Review Petitioners/ Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/ Appellant : Sri Kota Subba Rao The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Rev.CMP.No.3951 of 2013 in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 ORDER : This review application has been filed under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order dt.31.03.2011 in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this review petition are as under: 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed OP.No.2500 of 2004 on the file of the XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against review petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. In the said application, they alleged that their son died in a motor accident which took place on 09.07.2004, when a bus hired by petitioners which was proceeding from Nalgonda to Pochampally via Gattuppal, hit the deceased and the front wheel of the bus ran over him causing his death. The said vehicle was insured by 4th respondent herein and it belonged to 3rd respondent. 5. By judgment and decree dt.10.11.2006, the said OP was allowed holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4; and that the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The said judgment was challenged by 4th respondent herein by filing MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 in this Court. 7. By judgment and decree dt.31.03.2011, the said appeal was partly allowed holding that petitioners alone are liable to pay compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and not 4th respondent. This Court relied on the decision in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Labbipet Vijayawada v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao and others[1] [wrongly noted as 2009 (2) ALT 912 in the order] and held that if a vehicle is on hire with APSRTC (petitioners), and an accident occurs when the vehicle was being driven by a driver under the control of the APSRTC, the APSRTC alone would be liable. It also noted that Ex.B.1/Policy specifically excluded the liability of the insurer; and as the accident occurred due to the driver of the RTC bus, driving it in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioners alone are liable to pay the compensation and 4th respondent is not liable. 8. Seeking review of the above judgment, this review petition is filed. 9. Heard Sri C. Sunil Kumar, counsel for review petitioners/respondent Nos.4 and 5; Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri Kota Subba Rao, counsel for respondent No.4. 10. In the application seeking review, it is contended by review petitioners that the impugned judgment is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in UPSRTC v Kulsum and others[2]; and therefore, the judgment dt.31.03.2011 rendered by this Court in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record and deserves to be set aside. The counsel for the review petitioners reiterated the same in his oral submissions. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that there is no error apparent on the face of record of the order passed by this Court; that the judgment in Kulsum (2 supra) relied upon by the petitioners was rendered on 25.07.2011 after the MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 was decided on 31.03.2011; that as per Explanation II Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, a subsequent decision of a superior court in another case cannot be made a ground to review a judgment and therefore, the review petition be dismissed. He relied on Rajender Kumar and others v. Rambhai and others[3]. The counsel for the respondents reiterated the same in his oral submissions. 12. There is no dispute that the judgment in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 was rendered on 31.03.2011 and that the judgment in Kulsum (2 supra) taking a contrary view was rendered on 25.07.2011 by the Supreme Court of India. In Kulsum (2 supra), the Supreme Court held : “31. The liability to pay compensation is based on a statutory provision. Compulsory insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Act does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, a separate insurance policy should be taken. The purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act has been enacted with an object to advance social justice. … … … 35. Perusal of the ratio of aforesaid judgments of this Court shows that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to the third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicles or to the owners. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of third parties. … … … 39. Thus, looking to the matter from every angle, we are of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of payment of compensation to third parties or claimants. Admittedly, owner of the vehicle has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy or provisions of the Act. The owner had taken the insurance so as to meet such type of liability which may arise on account of use of the vehicle.” 13. As rightly contended by counsel for 4th respondent- Insurance Company, as per Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the fact that a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of the superior court in any other case, cannot be a ground for review of such a judgment. Therefore, even if the decision in Javvaji Bhaskar Rao (1 supra) stood over-ruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulsum (2 supra), the same cannot be made a ground for review. 14. It is also found by this Court in its judgment dt.31.03.2011 in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 that under Ex.B.1/Policy, the liability of the insurer stood excluded. No material is placed by the petitioners in the review petition to show that this finding is erroneous. If the policy excluded the liability of 4th respondent-Insurance Company, the 4th respondent-Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the payment of compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 10-10-2013 Ndr/* LR COPY TO BE MARKED : YES/NO B/o. Ndr /* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO REV. CMP.No.3951 of 2013 in MACMA.No.1467 of 2007 Date : 10-10-2013 Ndr/* [1] 2009 (3) ALD 53 [2] (2011) 8 SCC 142 [3] 2002 ACJ 1822