The court upheld that hiring does not absolve the insurer's liability and awarded enhanced compensation for the dependents based on just principles.

1. Aggrieved by the Award in OP No.2492 of 2006 passed by the M.A.C.T - cum - IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) both claimants as well as APSRTC preferred MACMA Nos.2953 of 2009 and 1846 of 2010 respectively.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) Claimants 1 to 4 are the wife and children of the deceased Basavaraj. On 25.08.2006 at about 7:30am when the deceased was boarding the APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP 28 V 3557 which was stopped on the road, the driver of the said bus moved suddenly at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased fell down and the front left wheel of the said bus ran over the left leg of the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was admitted in Remedy Hospitals, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and he succumbed to injuries on 24.09.2006 while undergoing treatment. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending RTC bus. It is pleaded that the deceased was working as Machine Operator in Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL and used to get a salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their breadwinner. On these pleas, the claimants filed OP No.2492 of 2006 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending bus and respondents 3 and 4, who are the authorities of APSRTC and claimed Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation under different heads.
b) First respondent remained ex parte.
c) Second respondent / Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim denying all the material averments in the petition and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. R.2 contended that without any valid permission to hire the vehicle much less to the APSRTC, R.1 hired the bus and so R.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. When the vehicle hired, the driver will be under the control of APSRTC and the insured or the owner will have no control over the driver and the vehicle and so liability should be fastened on R.3 and R.4 alone. R.2 contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident either fully or partly. R2 further contended that petitioners should be put to strict proof that the deceased died only due to injuries sustained in accident. Finally, R2 contended that claim is highly excessive and exorbitant.
d) Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter and contended that R.2, who is the insurer of the crime vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Thus R.3 and R.4 prayed for dismissal of the O.P.
e) During trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 and X1 and X2 were marked on behalf of claimants. RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of respondents.
f) A perusal of the award would show that issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW2eye witness coupled with Ex.A1F.I.R, Ex.A.2alteration memo and Ex.A4charge sheet, held that the driver of the offending bus was responsible for the accident. Issue No.2 which relates to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,94,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum under different heads as follows:

g) Sofaras the liability is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the decision reported in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, City Branch Office - II, Vijayawada v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao and others, 2009 (2) ALT 512 (AP) held that as the offending bus was hired with APSRTC and the driver was under the control of hirer, the ASPRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal exonerated the respondents 1