The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Labbipet, Vijayawada, is appellant. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.1.2000 in O.P.No.767 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam, directed appellant and second respondent as well as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.49,000/- to first respondent, the present appeal is filed.

2. Brief fact of the matter is as follows.

First respondent herein (hereafter, claimant) went to Yerrupalem railway station on his Moped bearing NO.AAH 2111 on 29.5.1995. When he reached Anjaneya Swamy Temple at the outskirts of Banigendlapadu village, bus owned by third respondent dashed against him resulting in accident. Claimant statedly suffered fracture injuries on his right leg and injuries on right hand. He was taken to Government Hospital, Madhira. As there was no orthopaedic surgeon, he was treated in a private hospital and discharged after two months. He filed original petition claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/-.

3. During the enquiry, negligence on the part of driver of bus bearing NO.AP 16-U 5965 was proved. However insurer sought exoneration from liability on the ground that as the bus was hired by APSRTC, it is alone liable to pay compensation, which was disputed by APSRTC. On considering the evidence, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that as bus was originally insured by appellant, they are also jointly and severally liable along with owner of bus and APSRTC.

4. Placing reliance on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari1, National Insurance Company Limited v. Lunavathi Ha, riya2 National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepa Devi and Godavari Finance Company v. Degala Satyanarayanama4 learned Counsel for appellant submits that when the bus is hired by APSRTC, insurer cannot be held liable for payment of insurance amount. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submits that a similar question stands referred to Full Bench for consideration, and therefore, the point cannot be taken as well settled.

5. As the issue is covered by following three judgments of Supreme Court, reference of matter to Full Bench does not bar this Court from deciding the case.

6. In Kailash Nath Kothan', Supreme Court considered question whether RTC is liable to pay compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when they hired a private bus insured with a nationalized insurance company. After making reference to various provisions of the Act, Supreme Court held that when the bus is hired by RTC, they alone would be vicariously liable to pay compensation for tort committed by driver even though driver is employee of registered owner. Relevant observation is as under.

The definition of owner under Section 2(19) of the Act is not exhaustive. It has, therefore to be considered, in a wider sense, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The expression owner must include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession and control of the vehicle and under whose directions and commands the driver is obliged to operate the bus. To confine the meaning of 'owner' to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer, not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident. The liability of the "owner" is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident. In this case, Shri Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus could not ply the bus on the particular route for which he had no permit and he in fact was not plying the bus on that route. The services of the driver were transferred along with complete 'control' to RSRTC, under whose directions, instruction~ and command the driver was to ply or not to ply the ill-fated bus on the f