IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 755 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/03/2007 in WP NO : 27986 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district. 2 The Depot Manager, Kodad Depot Kodad, APSRTC, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND S. Srinivasulu, S/o. Janaiah, R/o. H.No. 9-135, Sitarampuram, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No. 27986 of 2007, dated 27-3-2008, this appeal has been filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The facts, which gave rise for filing of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: The vehicle belonging to the respondent had been leased to the appellant- Corporation. The vehicle, which was under hire with the appellant-Corporation, met with an accident and as a result thereof compensation was made payable to the injured person. The appellant-Corporation was liable to pay the compensation by virtue of definition of the word ‘owner’, as defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the amount was not paid by the appellant-Corporation, the said amount was demanded by the respondent, but under letter dated 1-8-2007 the appellant refused to make the payment. The validity of the said letter was challenged in the petition. After hearing the concerned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case and more particularly looking to the definition of the word ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2(30) of the aforestated Act, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by directing the appellant to make payment of compensation as the appellant is the ‘owner’ of the vehicle and therefore liable to pay compensation to the injured person, to whom the respondent had paid the compensation. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed. By going through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment delivered in W.P.No.26375 of 2006, dated 8-12-2006, it is clear that the appellant-Corporation is liable to make payment of compensation as an ‘owner’ and therefore the appellant cannot deny its liability to make the payment. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper which does not require any interference. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 25th July, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR