(Sanjay Kumar, J.)

1. By common order dated 20.09.2007 passed in L.P.A. Nos. 206, 207, 208 & 219 of 2000 and 6 of 2002 , a learned the question as to whether compensation payable in respect of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) should be born by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company, the APSRTC or by some or all of them. The order of reference reads as under:

“The vehicle, which was involved in the accident giving rise to a claim, was on lease with State Road Transport Corporation. The vehicle was also insured with the insurance company, insured by its owner. The question, in these circumstances, is whether the compensation has to be paid by the owner, by the Insurance Company or A.P.S.R.T.C., or by some or by all. There are at least nine judgments of this Court on this question, out of which, three are Division Bench Judgments, reported in (1) District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. P.V. Sitamahalaxmi [2004 (2) ACJ 1332], (2) Depot Manager, APSRTC, Miryalaguda v. Poreddy Sujatha [2003 (5) ALD 586] and (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. B.G. Suma [2004 (2) ACJ 883].

2. We find there is cleavage of opinion in these judgments. We took up these cases on several occasions but nobody appeared for the Insurance Company and on last occasion, we requested Sri Kota Subba Rao, Senior Counsel, to assist us as Amicus Curiae. He had taken lot of pains to point out at least Nine Judgments of this Court and the Division Bench judgments referred to above. He has also pointed out to us, two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari [1997 (2) ACJ 1148] and Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania [(2003) 3 SCC 97].

3. Prima facie we are of the opinion that the Supreme Court judgments shown above, does not directly cover the controversy falling for consideration before us. Since there is cleavage of opinion between different judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, we refer the question framed above, for being decided by a Full bench of this court.

4. Let the papers be placed before Honorable the Chief Justice for necessary orders.”

5. L.P.A. Nos. 206,207,208 & 219 of 2000 and 6 of 2002 arose out of the common judgment dated 16.09.1999 of a learned Judge of this Court in CMA Nos. 173, 175,177,174 and 176 of 1990 respectively, reported in ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/s. BODAPATI KANAKA RATNABAI 2001 ACJ 401. Thereby, the learned Judge had held the APSRTC also to be liable for payment of the compensation and dismissed its appeals against the decrees of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding the owner of the vehicle, the APSRTC and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable.

6. CMA No. 3282 of 2002 was filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2002 in O.P. No. 1382 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The accident which led to the filing of the O.P. took place on 11.06.1999. The Tribunal held the APSRTC alone to be liable for payment of the compensation and absolved the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company of responsibility in this regard. Interim stay of execution of the said decree was granted by this Court on 19.11.2002 subject to the condition that the APSRTC deposits half of the decretal amount along with interest and costs before the lower Court within a time frame. The claimants were granted liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing security. By order dated 18.11.2008, the CMA was tagged on to the LPAs.

7. MACMA No.361 of 2006 was filed by New India Assurance Company Limited aggrieved by the award and decree dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati, in MVOP No.344 of 2000, whereby the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company and the APSRTC were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in respect of an accident that occurred on 17.07.2000 involving an insur