ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 to recover the compensation amount awarded by the MACT Cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.744 of 2012 vide Notice No.01/785(01)/14/- YGT dated 15.01.2014 from the hire bills payable to the petitioner for the bus bearing No. AP 24 X 1604 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned notice.

2. Heard Sri D.V. ChalapathiRao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri GaddamSrinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Corporation.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments in the writ affidavit, is that the pursuant to the tender notification issued by the respondent Corporation in the year 2008 for supply of passenger bus, one Smt. Y. LaxmiSrinivas had submitted tender notification and stood successful bidder for supply of passenger bus and entered into an Agreement with the 2nd respondent one behalf of 1st respondent Corporation vide Agreement dated 22.02.2008 and started operating the bus bearing No.AP 24X 1604 under hire terms with the respondent Corporation. It is the case of petitioner that the said Y. LaxmiSrinivas, due to financial conditions, could not continue with the operation of the said bus and offered to sell the bus and the petitioner having agreed to the said offer obtained a No Objection Certificate for transfer of ownership vide Order dated 10.07.2013 from the 2nd respondent and accordingly purchased the bus and operating the bus under the hire terms as per Office Order dated 10.07.2013 by entering into a fresh agreement which is co-terminous with the original agreement entered into with the original bidder. It is the case of the petitioner that the bus was insured with New India Assurance Company, covering all third party liabilities in the event of any liability arising during the course of operating the bus with the respondent Corporation. While so, during the course of operation of said bus for the respondent Corporation by its erstwhile owner Y. LaxmiSrinivas, the bus met with an accident on 05.01.2011 resulting in injuries to one B. Shiva Kumar. The said Shiva Kumar filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,500/- to the claimant vide Decree dated 12.06.2013 against the respondent Corporation. While so, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned Notice dated 15.01.2014 advising the petitioner to deposit the award amount of Rs.20,500/- with costs and interest, totaling to Rs.25,755/-. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is operating the bus since 10.07.2013 as per the hire terms and entering into a fresh agreement which is co-terminous with the original agreement, and a No Objection was also issued by the 2nd respondent on 10.07.2013 for transfer of ownership. It is also contended that the bus is insured with New India Assurance Company and the insurance policy is valid from 23.07.2013 to 04.07.2014, and that the respondent Corporation has not brought the facts about the ownership and the insurance coverage of the bus before the Tribunal while contesting the claim petition filed by the injured B. Shiva Kumar. Learned counsel contends that the impugned notice seeking to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the hire bills of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that as per paragraph 5(iii) of the terms of hire agreement the Corporation shall not be responsible for any damage or loss caused to the vehicle hire during theperiod of agitations, accidents etc., and as per paragraph 5(iv), the owner shall be liable for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations , like claims due to accidents payable under theprovisions of M.V. Act, 1988/ Rules and the corporation shall under no circ