( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-A. P. State road Transport Corporation (for brevity "the corporation"), learned counsel for respondent no. 1 -petitioner/claimant and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 4-New India assurance Company Limited (insurer ).

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order and decree, dated 17-4-2001, in O. P. No. 370 of 1996, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), west Godavari at Eluru (for brevity "the tribunal") awarding a sum of Rs. 60,000/-towards compensation as against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein in a motor accident that occurred on 21 -5-1995 while proceeding on his cycle, opposite to Dharmajigudem police Station, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus, bearing registration No. AP 16 3092, belonging to the third respondent herein, which was hired by the Corporation and insured with fourth respondent herein, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Corporation.

( 3 ) THE appellant herein is the Corporation, respondent No. 1 is the claimant, respondent no. 2 and 3 herein are driver and owner of the bus, respectively, and respondent No. 4 is the New India Assurance Company Limited (insurer ).

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties herein are referred to as "the Corporation", "the claimant", "the driver of the bus", "the owner of the bus" and "the insurer", respectively.

( 5 ) THE facts that led to filing of the present civil miscellaneous appeal, in brief and to the extent necessary, are that the bus involved in the accident was originally owned by respondent No. 3 herein and the same was insured with respondent No. 4 herein covering the risk of third parties, which is not in dispute. The said bus, after the insurance policy was drawn by the insured/owner, was leased out to the Corporation. To that effect an agreement was also entered into between the owner of the bus and the Corporation. Be that as it may, the bus met with an accident resulting in the injuries to the claimant. The claimant filed the claim petition O. P. No. 370 of 1996 making both the Corporation as well as the insurer along with the driver and owner of the offending bus as parties.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal, having considered the facts on record, granted an amount of rs. 60. 000/- towards compensation fastening the liability on the Corporation to pay the compensation to the claimant. Hence the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

( 7 ) IT is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that the corporation had simply hired the bus from the original owner and, therefore, it is the owner of the bus, who is responsible for any indemnification.

( 8 ) IN support of his contention, the learned standing counsel relied on a decision of the apex Court in Rikhi Ram and another v. Sukhrania and others.

( 9 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel forthe insurer vehemently contended that the insurer has no obligation to indemnify, inasmuch as, the bus was taken on hire by the Corporation and the same was being driven with the absolute control by the corporation only. Therefore, any accident resulting either in bodily injuries or death shall have to be indemnified by the Corporation only.

( 10 ) IN support of his contention, the learned standing counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in Rajasthan state Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash nath Kothari.

( 11 ) FROM the above rival contentions, there is no dispute as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only question that falls for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal is - whether the Corporation or the insurer is responsible for payment of compensation.

( 12 ) IN Kailash Nath Kotharis case (2 supra), the apex Court while interpreting the definition of owner enjoined under section 19 (2) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document