The hirer of a vehicle is not liable for compensation claims if the insurance policy remains valid and subsisting, as established in the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT:

V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) assailing the award dated 31.05.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1350 of 2009.2. Heard arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. Despite service of notice on respondents, none entered appearance.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP 37 Y 9277 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 16 N 9097 were involved in an automobile accident occurred on 09.06.2009 at about 8:00 P.M. on National Highway-5 road near Nallagate Center. In the said accident Sri Goli Ravindra @ Ravi suffered injuries and survived while his brother-in-law succumbed to injuries and died. Sri Goli Ravindra @ Ravi filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-. The bus was originally owned by Sri S.Srinivas. He was shown as respondent No.1. It was insured by him with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company. It was shown as respondent No.2. The bus was given on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. which was shown as respondent No.3. The original owner of the bus did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its pleadings denying any liability stating that the bus was hired to A.P.S.R.T.C. and that the accident was never informed to it. A.P.S.R.T.C./respondent No.3 therein filed its counter stating that the bus was validly insured and therefore the insurer alone has to pay. It further pleaded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of bus by its driver.

4. The following issues were settled by the Claims Tribunal:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Hire Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 9277?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

5. For claimant, there was oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A.1 to A.14 and Ex.X.1. For respondents, there was oral evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 as well as B.2 are the same insurance policies. Ex.B.3 is an agreement dated 25.05.2009 under which the owner of the bus gave the bus on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C.

6. At the material point of time the contract of hire was subsisting and the policy of insurance was subsisting. It was not a case of breach of any conditions of insurance policy. Though the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the claimant was not obliged to plead and prove the fault and the Claims Tribunal was not obliged to inquire as to whether the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of one or the other vehicle, the learned Chairman thought it fit to deal with the aspect of “fault” extensively and finally held that the motorcyclist was not at fault and the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and caused the accident and the resultant injuries to the claimant. It considered the evidence of doctor/PW.2, Ex.A.4-wound certificate, Ex.A.6- discharge summary, Ex.A.7-outpatient card, Ex.A.8-ultra sound scan report, Ex.A.9-CT scan, Ex.A.10-medical bills, Ex.A.11- prescriptions, A.12-X-ray films and Ex.A.14-scan films and held that the claimant underwent treatment at the hospital and there was a fracture for him and there were necessary surgical interventions. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:

Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,22,890/- was granted. It deliberated