The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession and control of the vehicles during the contract period determined the liability for compensation, and the insurance company's non-involvement in the agreement between U.P.S.R.T.C. and the actual owner absolved it from liability for compensation.

Rajes Kumar, J.—These are 14 appeals filed by the insurance company against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Barabanki passed on 22.2.2001 in Claim Petition Nos. 163 of 1996, order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/M.A.C.T. Bahraich in M.A.C.T. No. 93/70/2000, order dated 5.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 154/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 147/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 232/70/1998, order dated 6.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 151/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 163/70/1998, order dated 4.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 148/70/1998, order dated 8.5.2006 in Claim Petition No. 153/70/1998, order dated 31.1.2006 in Claim Petition No. 155/70/1998, order dated 10.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 149/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 150/70/1998, order dated 23.9.2005 in Claim Petition No. 220/70/1998 and order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Judge (E. C. Act), Bahraich in Claim Petition No. 164/70/1998 by which in the accident the buses attached to U.P.S.R.T.C., the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation. Since in all the appeals a common question is involved, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by a common order.

2. In all the cases owner of the buses entered into the contract/ agreement with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Sapru Marg, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.S.R.T.C.") to provide their buses for transportation. The owner of the vehicles admittedly got their vehicles insured through the appellant-insurance companies. The U.P.S.R.T.C. has not got such vehicles insured . The question for consideration is that while such buses met with accidents, which, under the terms of the contract, have been provided to U.P.S.R.T.C., whether the insurance company is liable for compensation to the third party to indemnify the liability of the owner of the buses or the U.P.S.R.T.C.

3. Heard Sri R. C. Sharma, Ms. Alka Verma and Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri Aqtar Abbas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. and S/Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh and Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in case of accident. The owner is defined by Section 2 (30) of the Act. Under the definition of the owner the person under whose possession the vehicle was, is deemed to be the owner. Under the terms of the agreement between the actual owner of the vehicle and the U.P.S.R.T.C., the possession and control of the vehicle have been transferred to U.P.S.R.T.C. during the period of contract which is clear from clause (1) of the agreement. Therefore, the U.P.S.R.T.C. is the owner of the vehicle within the definition of owner under the Act for the period of contract. He submitted that under the insurance policies, the insurance companies undertook to indemnify the liability of the owner who got the vehicle insured. Since the vehicle during the period of contract, was not in possession and control of the actual owner (in short 'insured') but was under the possession and control of U.P.S.R.T.C. The insured who got the vehicles insured were not the owner within the definition of "owner" under the Act and the U.P.S.R.T.C. was the owner within the definition of the Act and liable for compensation. The insurance company has not undertaken, under the insurance policies, to indemnify the U.P.S.R.T.C. in respect of their liability, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation for the accident committed during the period of agreements between the insured and the U.P.S.R.T