The hirer of a vehicle is not liable for compensation if the vehicle is insured and the agreement specifies that the owner is responsible for claims arising from accidents.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.644 of 2006 dated 03.06.2011.

2. The appellant is the APSRTC/hirer of the Bus bearing No.AP 04 T 9494 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the said crime bus respectively.

3. The appeal against the 1^st respondent/claimant was dismissed for default vide proceedings dated 17.03.2015. Thereby, the present appeal is contested against respondent Nos.2 and 3/owner and insurer of the crime bus only.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

5. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 25.02.2006 afternoon, while the claimant along with his friend Vibhakar Reddy proceeding on Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 C 9322, when they reached Parameswara School board, near Lohia Nagar, the crime bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant in opposite direction, resulted the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right left and other parts of the body.

ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the owner, insurer and hirer of the crime bus.

6. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle on which the claimant was proceeding as pillion rider, but not driver of the crime bus; that the crime bus was taken on hire by the 3^rd respondent/APSRTC, thereby, RTC alone liable to pay compensation; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

7. The respondent No.3/APSRTC/hirer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver, who is responsible for the accident is not the servant of APSRTC; that the 1^st respondent/owner is the master of the driver; that the crime was taken from the 1^st respondent for hire only on the basis of contract; that as per the clause No.5(iv) the owner shall be held responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of operations, like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M.V.Act and Rules, APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunals in respect of accidents; that insurer of the bus alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1. Whether the claimant received injuries on 25.02.2006 at 12.30 p.m. at Parameswara High School Board on Kadapa – Pulivendla main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Hired bus bearing No.AP 04 T 9494?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? and

3. To what relief?”

9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, its Divisional Manager was examined and Ex.B.1 policy was marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3/APSRTC, its Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B.2 agreement was exhibited.

10. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,49,500/-, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.3/APSRTC/hirer only, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claim against respondent No.2/insure