C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4, who are the widow, children and mother (hereinafter referred to as claimants ) of Poreddi Janaki Reddy (hereinafter referred to as deceased ), filed o. P. No. 716 of 1990 before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Nalgonda seeking compensation of rs. 2,00,000/-, alleging that on 11. 6. 1990 at about 1. 00 p. m. , while the deceased was boarding the bus bearing No. AHM 1879 belonging to the fifth respondent, insured with sixth respondent and taken on hire by the appellant, he was thrown out of the footboard due to the driver negligently starting the bus and was crushed to death by the rear wheels of the bus. The O. P. against the fifth respondent was dismissed by the tribunal for non-payment of the process. Sixth respondent, who is the insurer of the bus that caused the accident, filed its counter statement putting the claimants to proof of the allegations in the petition. Appellant filed its counter putting the claimants to proof of the allegations in the petition and appellant also is the deemed owner of the bus involved in the accident as per Section 2 (30) of the Act, and is a party to the O. P. contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, by his trying to enter the bus while trying to open the closed door of the bus in motion, and so claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that the claimants would have been entitled to rs. 64,000/- as compensation from fifth and sixth respondents and that the appellant, as hirer, is not liable to pay the compensation, but dismissed the O. P. against the sixth respondent and since the O. P. against the owner, i. e. , fifth respondent, was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, claimants preferred c. M. A. No. 88 of 1995 to this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the appellant, as hirer, was having control over the bus at the time of accident and hence is liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, determined the compensation payable at Rs. 80,000/-, and accordingly passed an award in favour of the claimants for Rs. 80,000/- with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the appellant. Hence this appeal by A. P. S. R. T. C. , the hirer of the bus.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is who, among the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, is or are liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants?

( 4 ) THE contention of Sri K. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, is that since the driver that caused the accident was employed by and was under the control of the fifth respondent, the owner, he and the insurer alone, but not the appellant that is liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants. He placed strong reliance on National Insurance company Limited, Warangal v. Lunavathi hariya, 2003 (2) ALD 617, in support of his said contention. His further contention is that in any event since the bus admittedly was insured with sixth respondent at the time of accident, sixth respondent also is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. He placed strong reliance on Rikhi ram v. Sukharania, 2003 (2) ALD 71 (SC), in support of the said contention. He also relied on Peddaboina Laxmi v. Lamba Road lines, 2002 (6) ALD 132 (DB), and Rajastan state Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3444, Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the claimants, placing strong reliance on Kailash nath Kothari case (supra) and General manager, APSRTC v. B. Kanakaratna Bai, 2000 (2) ALT 56, contended that the learned single Judge rightly made appellant liable for payment of the compensation payable to the claimants. Sri K. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for sixth r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document