IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.904 of 2019 DATE: 12.02.2026 Between:

The Managing Director and Chairman, APSRTC, RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad, A.P.

…..Appellant AND A. Kumara Swamy and two others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-APSRTC, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 287 of 2008 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak Sangareddy (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1 herein, jointly and severally against respondent No.2 (owner) and appellant herein (hirer) with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent No.1 herein was travelling as a passenger in an APSRTC bus hired from respondent No.2 (owner) to provide service for the appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. As the claimant was attempting to alight from the bus at Beeramguda Kaman, the bus moved suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, causing the claimant to fall and sustain multiple injuries, including a crushed and fractured left hand, requiring hospitalization and prolonged treatment. The police of Ramachandrapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2008 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC against the driver. Alleging that the accident and injuries were caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner, insurer and APSRTC (hirer).

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 herein (owner) denied negligence and alleged that the claimant voluntarily tried to alight from a moving bus, contributing to the accident. Respondent No.3- insurane company denied liability on grounds that the driver did not hold a valid license at the time and contended that the owner failed to obtain necessary endorsements to cover the risk while the vehicle was on hire. The appellant-APSRTC contended that as mere hirer, without privity of contract with the insurance company and under the terms of the hire agreement, it was not liable for compensation and the insurer alone should bear liability. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, recoverable jointly and severally from respondent No.2 herein (owner) and the appellant - APSRTC, while the claim against the insurer was dismissed for lack of coverage evidence. Aggrieved by the award, appellant-APSRTC filed this appeal.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on documentary evidence including the FIR, scene panchanama, medical certificates and charge sheet, which established that the accident occurred while the bus was in motion, and injuries sustained were consistent with a vehicular accident. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, the finding of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver cannot be faulted.

6. On the question of liability, it is undisputed that the offending vehicle was a bus hired to the appellant-APSRTC and was under its control at the time of the accident. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, a hirer who exercises control over the vehicle and its driver can be held liable for third-party liabilities arising from negligent operation of the vehicle. Furthermore, to fasten liability on the insurer, the insurance policy must cover the risk of the vehicle while on hire under the control of the hirer, typically by inclusion of endorsements such as IMT