When both the driver (employed by the owner) and the conductor (employed by the hirer) are negligent in causing a motor accident, both the owner/insurer and the hirer are vicariously liable for the resulting damages.

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award, dated 19.10.2006, in M.V.O.P. No.79 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.2690 of 2007 is filed by M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2014 is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C.

3. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2690 of 2007 are the claimants; the insurance company is the respondent No.2; the respondent No.5 in this appeal is owner of the bus and the respondent No.6 in this appeal is the A.P.S.R.T.C. which hired the bus are the respondents Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal. The parties are arrayed hereafter as before the Tribunal, for the purpose of convenience.

4. The case of the claimants, briefly stated, is as follows:

a. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Smt. M. Bhulakshmi (in short, “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident. The first claimant is the husband. The claimants Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased.

b. On 16.06.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in a bus bearing No. AP 03/U-3577, as she wanted to get down from the bus at S.B.I. Training Center, K.T. by-pass road, Tirupati, the conductor of the bus opened the door and the driver of the bus drove at high speed and suddenly applied brakes. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her head. She was taken to S.V.I.M.S., Tirupati, where she succumbed to injuries at 1.30 p.m., on the same day.

c. The deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day as a tailor. She was aged about 35 years. The bus was insured by the appellant. A.P.S.R.T.C. hired the bus owned by the respondent No.5 herein. Therefore, the claimants sought compensation against the owner, the hirer and the insurer of the bus with joint and several liability.

5. The owner remained ex parte.

6. The insurance company filed a counter putting the claimants to strictly prove the averments and further stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the conductor of the bus and not due to the conduct of the driver and moreover a charge sheet was also filed against the conductor of the bus, vide Crime No.89 of 2001 and therefore, A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable for the negligence of its employee who was the conductor. It is further pleaded that the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years and the rate of interest and compensation sought by the claimants is also stated to be excessive.

7. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed a separate counter denying the liability of the conductor and also stating that the driver of the bus is responsible for causing the accident and that the driver of the bus is the employee of the owner of the bus and that A.P.S.R.T.C. is not liable as per the agreement of hiring of the bus between the owner of the bus and A.P.S.R.T.C., particularly clause 5 (iv) of the agreement.

8. On behalf of the claimants, husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and R. Purushotham, an eye witness of the accident was examined as P.W.2. The claimants produced documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of A.P.S.R.T.C., V. Gurumurthy, Senior Assistant, was examined as R.W.1 and filed a photostat copy of the hire purchase agreement between A.P.S.R.T.C. and the owner of the bus as Ex.B1 and a copy of the policy issued