By the Court.—We have heard Sri H.P. Dubey for the petitioner. Sri Sameer Sharma appears for the respondent U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

2. The petitioner is registered owner of vehicle No. UP 15-M/4925, which was being run under a contract with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short the Corporation), of which clause 10 provides that in case of an accident on account of any fault, negligence, accident or illegal act of driver of the vehicle, the second party (the petitioner) or the Insurance Company shall liable to pay the compensation under law. The first party, i.e. the Corporation shall not liable to pay compensation, however, if under the orders of the Court or Tribunal, the first party (the Corporation) has paid any compensation, the second party i.e. the owner of the vehicle (the petitioner) shall liable to reimburse or for deduction of such amount from the amount payable by the Corporation. In case of failure to pay such amount, the Corporation may proceed to recover the same under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972, as arrears of land revenue. Clause 10 of the agreement, further provides that the owner of the vehicle will have no objection, in case of such recovery.

3. The vehicle met with an accident, in which injuries were caused to Shri Narbeer. A claim petition No. 344 of 2008, was filed by him in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad, which was decided on 22.6.2011 awarding compensation to the claimant. The liability for payment of Rs. 1,31,500/- was fixed by the Tribunal on the Corporation, as the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with the definition of owner in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

4. The Corporation did not file any appeal against the award. It has now invoked the provision of clause 10 of the agreement, for recovering the entire amount from the petitioner, and has given a notice to the petitioner on 3.9.2012, to pay the entire amount.

5. Sri H.P. Dubey has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, JT 1997 (7) SC 677 and on a decision of the Court in United India Insurance Company v. UPSRTC, 2010 (2) AWC 1351 (LB), to support his contention that the owner of the vehicle in case of contract under which the vehicle is run by the Corporation is the Corporation. The petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of the award and that in any case the amount is not recoverable as she cannot be indemnified by the Insurance Company.

6. We are informed by Sri Sameer Sharma that the judgment of the Court in United India Insurance Corporation v. UPSRTC (Supra) has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2011, on 25.7.2011, in which the Supreme Court held that in the circumstances of that case the liability of insurance company is exclusive and absolute.

7. In the present case, the petitioner did not obtain consent or a no objection certificate from the Insurance Company, which had insured the vehicle before entering into a contract with the Corporation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal considered the question of liability under the award and found that the Insurance Company was not a party to the agreement. The registered owner of the vehicle did not get no objection from the Insurance Company, and produce the same before the Corporation. Since the petitioner did not obtain consent, or no objection certificate of allowing the vehicle to be operated for the benefit of the Corporation, the Insurance Company was not held liable.

8. The Tribunal further found, relying on clause 10 of the agreement dated 9.10.2007, that in case of any claim for award against the Corporation for any fault, negligence or accident, the Corporation will be entitled to recover the amount from the registered owner of the vehicle, who will not have any objection if the amount is recovered under the U.P. Pubic Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972, as arrears of land