In motor accident claims involving vehicles hired by a transport corporation, if the corporation has effective control and command over the vehicle and driver, the insurance company remains liable for compensation and cannot escape liability.

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act, 1988’) assailing the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC) at Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1975 of 2003 dated 05.12.2005.

2. Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are respondent Nos.1 and 3 in O.P.No.1975 of 2003.

3. Respondent No.1-petitioner has filed Claim Petition under Section 140 and 163-A of MVACT 1988 R/W Rules 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

4.1 It is stated in the petition that on 17.06.2003 at about 9 A.M., respondent No.1-petitioner was proceeding on a cycle to attend duties at Santoshnagar X Roads from Ramanthapur and when he reached I.S. Sadan X Roads, bus bearing No.AP28U 4320, which is hired with APSRTC, proceeding in the same direction dashed the cycle from behind due to which respondent No.1- petitioner fell down and the bus ran over the left foot and immediately the respondent No.1-petitioner fell un-conscious and was shifted to Owaisi Hospital where he was treated as an inpatient. On the complaint, Saidabad Police have registered a case in Crime No.214 of 2003 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

4.2. Respondent No.1-Petitioner was working as a Mason and earning Rs.3,000/- per month, he was aged about 18 years on the date of accident and due to the accident he lost his income and because of the permanently disabled he claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 there in have filed their separate counters denying the manner in which the accident has taken place and also the age and avocation of the respondent No.1- petitioner. They also contended that the claim made by respondent No.1-petitioner is exorbitant and excessive and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues :

1) Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP28U 4320?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. Respondent No.1-petitioner is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. No evidence is adduced by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 but respondent No.2 has got marked Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy.

8. Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1-petitioner coupled with the documents marked thereon has dismissed the petition against respondent No.3 (APSRTC) and allowed the O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Respondent No.2 and Appellant herein) and awarded an amount of Rs.46,750/- together with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of two (2) months.

9.1 Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the vehicle was under hire with APSRTC and as such APSRTC alone is liable to pay the awarded amount. The learned Tribunal failed to see that the driver is under the control of APSRTC and the owner has no control over him. Hence, there is no vicarious liability on the owner. Consequently, the insurer of vehicle involved in the accident is not liable to pay compensation.

9.2 Learned counsel for the appellant