JUDGMENT :

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same accident and the parties to the proceedings are one and the same.

1. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021 and for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006, Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006, and Mr. Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel, representing Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd appellant-APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006 and for the respondent-APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021 was preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, while M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006 was preferred by the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 29.08.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petition.

4. The original petition was filed by the petitioner-claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2001. The petitioner is working as Sub-Engineer in A.P. Transco, North Division, Proddutur and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7446.75 ps.

i) On 14.05.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. the petitioner proceeded to office on his scooter bearing No.AP 04 9617 and as there was a red light signal at T.B. Circle near Vijaya Kumar Theatre, Proddutur, he stopped his scooter at the Circle. After the green signal being switched on, the petitioner started and turned his scooter towards Eastern side of the T.B. Road. In the meantime, a bus bearing No.AP 04U 2016 being driven by its driver came from Gandhi Road in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the leg of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries to his left leg.

ii) Immediately after the accident, on the advice of the doctor, the petitioner was admitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where he took treatment and spent a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Subsequently, he joined Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and undergone operation by spending Rs.50,000/-apart from spending an amount of Rs.30,000/-towards medical check-ups. In spite of taking treatment, the petitioner is not in a position to walk without assistance and attend his personal work.

iii) As the 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer and the 3rd respondent is the hirer of the bus, a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-was claimed against all the respondents, jointly and severally.

5. The 1st respondent-owner remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and contending that the offending vehicle was given on hire by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent-APSRTC and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent and further that the amount claimed is excessive. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the original petition.

7. The 3rd respondent-APSRTC also filed a written statement. It is inter alia contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and the offending vehicle was hired with APSRTC and the 1st respondent-owner of the bus had entered into an agreement with APSRTC. It is also contended that as per Clause 5(iv) of the agreement, the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of operations like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of the M.V. Act and that APSRTC shall not be made liable for payment of compensation that may be awarded. It is contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary p