GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) ALL these appeals are filed by Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against the common order dated 19-2-2003 in O. P. Nos. 71, 75, 70, 78, 77 and 72, respectively, on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, fastening the liability on the appellant corporation and exonerating the insurance company from its liability in respect of the accident caused on 2-11-2000. Hence, these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed the above OPs claiming compensation from APSRTC and insurer of the bus involved in the accident. On 2-11-2000 at about 9. 30 p. m. , near KM stone 178/4 on the National Highway No. 7 when the claimants and the deceased were travelling in an auto bearing No. AP-21t- 3070 from Gadwal to Dharmavaram Village, a bus bearing No. AP-21t-8333 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto. All the passengers in the auto including the injured claimants and auto driver sustained multiple injures in the accident and they were all shifted to the government General Hospital, Kurnool, for treatment and the driver Gokari, Golla chinna Hussain and Boya Chinna Beesanna died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. A case in Crime No. 28 of 2000 was registered by Kondandapur Police. The injured claimants and the dependents of the deceased filed the said OPs claiming compensation from the owner of the bus, apsrtc and insurer of the bus involved in the accident.

( 3 ) THE fifth respondent herein is the owner of the bus and APSRTC is the hirer of the said bus, which is insured with New india Assurance Company Limited.

( 4 ) SINCE the claim arose from the same accident, PWs. 1 to 12 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-17 marked on behalf of the claimants and RWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the owner of the bus, APSRTC and the insurance company and Exs. B-1 to B-6 were marked. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record and the submissions on either side, fastened the liability on the APSRTC and exonerated the insurance company of its liability.

( 5 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation, learned Counsel for the claimants and learned standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant corporation has drawn my attention to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the owner of the bus and APSRTC who is the hirer of the bus. Clause 5 of the Agreement reads as under:" (0 The owner shall keep the bus road worthy in terms of Chapter-VI of the M. V. Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder from time to time by carrying out necessary maintenance and repairs at his own cost. (ii) The owner shall keep his vehicle duly insured to cover third party risk and shall also pay the M. V. Taxes and other taxes and levies payable as a consequence of the operation of the above vehicle to all the authorities concerned. (iii) It is mutually agreed that the corporation shall not be responsible for any damage or loss caused to the, vehicle hired during the period of agitations accident etc. (iv) The owner shall be responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M. V. Act/rules and apsrtc shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may awarded by Motor accidents Claims Tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents. (v) It ensure be the responsibility of the owner to make arrangement for proper prosecution of proceedings either before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or tribunals, Commissioner for Workmen compensation, RTA and STA. "

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also contends that the vehicle is insured with the third party and the APSRTC is not the insured and the Corporation was plying the bus on the road as on the dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document