THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 1916 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 14.11.2004 in O.P.No.399 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of communal offence cases- cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2001 at 4.00 p.m., when the claimant and one Laxmipathi were returning from Koheda on Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No.AAJ 8249 slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached Torrur and Koheda “X” roads, the bus bearing No.AP 28 U 5151 hired by A.P.S.R.T.C., driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction, suddenly took a turn and dashed the scooter, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture of left hand fingers, wrist, right collar bone and injuries all over the body. It is stated that the claimant was doing real estate business and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and that due to the said accident, he became permanently disabled and completely bed ridden. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C filed written statement opposing the claim of the claimant. The first respondent-owner of the bus and the second respondent – Insurance Company filed their respective counters denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the points as to whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident took place on 15.12.2001 at 4.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28U 5151, by its driver and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? On behalf of the claimant, PW 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked and Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance company was marked on behalf of the third respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs.1,09,000/- towards compensation payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed this appeal. The short issue that involved in this appeal is that whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the offending bus was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C. The learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company submitted that as the crime vehicle was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C. on the date of the accident, and the driver of the bus, who was under the control of A.P.S.R.T.C., drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay compensation, however, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle also. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, City Branch Office – II, Vijayawada v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao[1], wherein this Court held that though the appellant insured the offending bus, it was on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C and that the driver of the bus was under control of A.P.S.R.T.C., and therefore, A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the offending bus was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C at the relevant time and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the fastening the liability on the appellant also by the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, City Branch Office – II, Vijayawada v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao (supra), and since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, which was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C, and the driver was under the control of A.P.S.R.T.C., I am of the opinion that A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay compensation and the appellant – Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent of exonerating the appellant insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. In all other aspects, the judgment of the Tribunal shall remain intact. However, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount, if any, paid, from A.P.S.R.T.C. With the above modification, the Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.03.2011 va [1] 2009 (2) ALT 912