RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved by the award passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- first Additional District Judge, Ranga reddy at L. B Nagar, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) IT appears that claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein had filed O. P. No. 216 of 2000 before the said Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on the death of one Badrinarayana, who died in the motor accident which took place on 10. 12000 at about 10. 30 p. m. As far as the incident is concerned, there is no dispute. On recording the evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of rs. 10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. There was also a direction for making fixed deposits in the names of the claimants.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said award, the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal on the ground that the liabilty for paying compensation was wrongly fastened on them. It was also contended that Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation (for short a. P. S. R. T. C. ) is liable to pay compensation.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: the hi-tech bus bearing No. AP 36-U 3126 is owned by the respondent No. 5 herein. The said vehicle was given on hire to A. P. S. R. T. C. on certain terms and conditions. The said bus caused the death of the deceased.

( 5 ) NOW the short question posed before this court is as to who is liable to pay compensation?

( 6 ) IT is also not in dispute about the fact that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, i. e. , appellant herein.

( 7 ) LEARNED standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein submitted at the Bar that the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant herein. The vehicle was given on lease to A. P. S. R. T. C. and, therefore, they are the owners of the vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2 (30) of the said Act reads as under:" (30) owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. "

( 8 ) AS stated earlier, the vehicle was hired to A. P. S. R. T. C. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein pointed out a ruling of the apex Court reported in Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Ko- thari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC ). Their Lord- ships of the Apex Court were dealing with the similar type of subject. Their Lordships while deciding the above case considered the definition of owner and also concluded that Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short r. S. R. T. C. ) had taken the vehicle on hire and, therefore, they were the owners within the meaning of the said Act. Their Lordships further observed in the judgment that R. S. R. T. C. had a permit to ply the bus on a route be- tween Kekri to Jaipur. They had taken the bus bearing No. RSB 3945 on lease from the owner named, Sanjay Kumar. The said bus was also insured with the insurance company. Their Lordships further observed in the judgment that the driver of the bus was under the control of R. S. R. T. C. He was required to ply the bus on a particular route. It was also observed by their Lordships that the conductor of the bus was an employee of R. S. R. T. C. He was collecting the bus fare from the passengers, which had met with an accident causing the death of as many as 23 passengers. Therefore, their Lordships on elaborate consideration concluded that the owner of the vehicle had no control over the route on which the bus was plying. The bus was in possession and control of R. S. R. T. C. and, therefore, they were the owners within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, held that the r. S. R. T. C. is liable to pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document