IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

n

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i,

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: ³⁰⁰¹ OF ²⁰¹² '.V#,

f.

V

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and order dated 25-02r2010 passed in M.V.O.P No.90/2007 on ; 7 '< i-'.r ⁱ the file of the Motor Accidents Clairhs Tribunal ( Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram.

Between:

• 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road^Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram DeppL^Vizianagaram.
• 2. Andhra Pradesh State Roaci|Ft^hsport Corporation, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Vizianagaram. '■'S
• 3. Andhra Pradesh State Rpidi Transport Corporation, Rep. by it§ Managing Director, Hyderabad.

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO ⁶

-'l; AND .5-

V

Alaboni Ramanamma, W/o. T^a; Aged about 38 years, Hindu, R/o. Allupeta Village, Bheemili Mandali Visakhapatnam.

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

4

• 1. K.Susheela, W/o. Kondala Rao, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Owner of RTC Hire Bus No. B.No. AP 35 T 8399, R/o. Opp: St. Joseph Convent, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.(R23
• 2. United India Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager Srikakulam.(R3)
• 3. Ch. Jagannadham, S/o. Krishnamma, Aged about 38 years, Hindus Driver of RTC, Hire Bus B.No. AP 35 T 8399, R/o. Budathanapalli Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram.(RI)

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2011(MACMAMP. NO: 396 OF 2011)

Petition under Section 151,, CP praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of the operation of the order and decree dated 25.02.2010 in MVOP No.90/2007 on the file of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal [Family Court cum Additional District and 'Sessions Court] Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the MACMA.

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) ,

i ;■

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SMT V DURGA

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI JAYANTI S C SEKHAR

The Court made the following JUpGMENT :

APHC010586522012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3365]

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3001/2012

Between:

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport & 2 ...APPELLANT(S) Others and Others

AND

Alabonl Ramanamma 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.JAYANTI S C SEKHAR

2.VDURGA

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MAGMA No. ³⁰⁰¹ of ²⁰¹²

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the APSRTC impugning the order dated 25.02.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims 1. Tribunal Cum -Additional District And Sessions Court, Vizianagaram in MVOP.No.90 of 2007.

2. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Smt.A.Ramanamma aged 35 years has been eking out her livelihood by doing coolie work. On 25.11.2005, she was on foot the left side of the road near Muddadapeta Junction. At that time, APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP ³⁵ T ⁸³⁹⁹ was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and it came at high speed and dashed her causing fracture on left femur of left thigh. She also sustained several injuries. In terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, she made a claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- before learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in MVOP.No.90 of 2007. At the material point of time, Sri Ch.Jagannadham was at the steering wheel of the offending bus. on

Dr.VRKS^J MACMA.No.3001 of 2012

The bus was originally owned by Smt.K.Suseela insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, material point of time, the insurance policy was in force. In terms and got it At the of Ex.B2 agreement, the owner of the bus gave it on hire to APSRTC. As against all of them, the compensation claim was preferred before the claims tribunal. The driver and original did not choose to contest. The insurance company/ R3 before the claims tribunal filed owner a counter disowning any liability on the premise that the bus being hired to APSRTC and the passengers having been paying fairs to APSRTC, the liabiiity, if any, shouid be shouidered by APSRTC but not by the insurance company. APSRTC filed its counter traversing narration of the incident made in the claim petition and disputing the therein. It contends that the bus being insured by the ⁱ company, the liability, if any, should be shouldered narration made insurance by the insurance company. On the rival pleadings, the claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and driving of R.1? negligent

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, at what quantum of amount the petitioner is entitled?

3. To what relief?

\

3. The claimant testified conducted two surgeries on her testified and Exs.XI to X3 testified as RW.1. Ex.B1 ⁱ agreement of hire were marked. as PW.I and the doctor who as PW.2. EXS.A1 to A7 were marked. An officer of the APSRTC insurance policy and Ex.B2 copy of

4. After analysis of the entire evidence considering the rival submissions made tribunal observed that PW.1 as well on record and after on both sides, the claims per the evidence of injured claimant/ as as investigative outcome of the police this accident registered Cr.No.349 of 2005 concerning evidenced by Ex.A3/ was out of rash or negligent driving of It observed that the injured had on two occasions and she being a coolie charge sheet, the accident the driver of the APSRTC bus. undergone surgeries had expended lot of money towards her medical expenses and she suffered partial permanent disability of 35%. Accordingly, it granted compensation as mentioned below.

4

Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3001 of 2012

REGION

		Amount in Rs.
	earnings<br>Towards loss of	1,00,800
	because of disability
	$\overrightarrow{S}$ and $\overrightarrow{S}$ .
$2.$	Towards transport and extra	4,000
	nourishment<br>$\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$<br>$\pi$ $\hat{S}$ $\pi$
3.	Towards medical expenses	15,706
4.	Towards pain and suffering	5,000
		ᆠᅩᆈ<br>$=$ $\alpha$ $\alpha$ $\perp$

Thus, total compensation of Rs.1,25,506/- was granted.

It considered the rival submissions of insurance company $5.$ and APSRTC. It finally held that APSRTC alone was liable to pay compensation. It positively recorded an observation that the insurance company was not liable. Taking such view, it dismissed the claim as against the owner of the bus. It passed the award in the following terms.

"In the result, petition is allowed in part, granting compensation of Rs.1,25,500-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty five thousand and five hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the of realization against respondents 1, 4 to 6 jointly and severally. The respondents 4 to 6 are directed to deposit the same into the Court, within a month from the date of this order. After such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation and the

$\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{P}}]$

$\sim \mathcal{H}^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathbb{R} \times \frac{\mathbb{R}}{2\pi}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$

$\mathsf{S}$

remaining amount shall be invested in IDBI Bank, Vizianagaram into Fixed deposit for a period of three years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/-. Rest of the claim is dismissed. "

6

Aggrieved by it, APSRTC has come up with this appeal. 6.

Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned standing counsel for APSRTC argued that simply because the bus was taken on hire, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability and the award impugned is against law thus, required to be interfered 7. with.

8. Respondent No.2 herein/ Smt.K.Suseela was the owner of the offending bus. Learned counsel for appellant argued that dismissing the claim petition as against the owner of the bus is incorrect and the liability should be fastened on her as well as the insurance company. Respondent No.3 in this appeal is United India Insurance Company Limited. On behalf of it, no legal proposition has been canvassed countering the submissions made by the APSRTC in this appeal. Smt. A.Ramanamma was the claimant before the claims tribunal and she is shown as R1 in this appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant, Sri Jayanti S.C.Sekhar, appeared on her behalf and submits that the / questions raised in this appeal may be decided in accordance with the law.

7

9. The point that falls for consideration is

Whether the learned claims tribunal committed legal error in fastening liability on APSRTC and in exonerating the liability on part of the insured and insurer of the offending bus? JJ

POINT: -

10. From the evidence, it is crystal clear that R2 in this appeal is the registered owner of the offending bus and by virtue of Ex.BI, it is crystal clear that it was validly insured and the insurance policy was effective on the date of accident/ 25.11.2005. It is also very clear that under Ex.B2 agreement, she leased out the services of the driver and the bus on hire to APSRTC. At the material point of time, the effective control over the bus was with APSRTC. Thus, the facts are not in dispute. In this regard, the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in UPSRTC V. Kulsum^ and UPSRTC V. Rajenderi Devi ^ are

¹ (2011) 8 see 142 ² (2020) 19 see 230

\

T

required to be seen. Their Lordships have dealt with similar case of an insured bus being hired to APSRTC and the relative liability of the parties fell for consideration. Their Lordships held that on leasing of insured bus it would be deemed that the vehicle would be transferred along with the insurance policy to lessee. Therefore, the insurance policy obtained by the original owner would still subsist and the owner and insurance company cannot escape from liability to pay compensation to third party risks. In the case at hand, the injured claimant is a third party to the insurance policy. By virtue of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships, it is crystal clear that insured/R2/Smt.K.Susheela and the insurer/R3/United India Insurance Company Limited should shoulder the responsibility. Fastening liability on APSRTC is incorrect in law and therefore the award of the claims tribunal which held otherwise cannot be maintained. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, order $11.$ dated 25.02.2010 in MVOP.No.90 of 2007 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District And Sessions Court, Vizianagaram fixing liability on the appellants herein/APSRTC is set aside. The liability to pay compensation

8

Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3001 of 2012

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

//TRUE COPY//

:r

• 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC]
• 3. One CC to Sri Jayanti S C Sekhar Advocate [OPUC]
• 4. One CC to Smt. V Durga /^Y^dte [OPUC]
• 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
• 6. Three CD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025

JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.3001 of 2012

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$

$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}$

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE >\

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: ³⁰⁰¹ OF 2012

Between:

• 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road'Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram Depot, Vizianagaram.
• 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Vizianagaram.
• 3. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6

AND

Alaboni Ramanamma, W/o. Tata, Aged about 38 years, Hindu, R/o. Allupeta Village, Bheemili Manda'I, Visakhapatnam.

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

A

*0,

• 1. K.Susheela, W/o. Kondala Rao, Aged about ⁴¹ years, Hindu, Owner of RTC Hire Bus No. B.No. AP 35 T 8399, R/o. Opp: St. Joseph Convent, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.(R2)
• 2. United India Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam.(R3)

3. Ch. Jagannadham, S/o. Krishnamma, Aged about 38 years, Hindu, T^Dfiver of RTC, Hire Bus B.No. AP ³⁵ T 8399, R/o. Budathanapalli ^ "s. yiliage, Gantyada Mandal, Vi2ianagaram.(R1)

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and order dated 25-02-2010 passed in M.V.O.P No.90/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram.

Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. V Durga for the Respondent No.3, and Sri Jayanti S C Sekhar for other Respondents.

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

r

• 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed;
• 2. That the Order dated 25.02.2010 in MVOP.No.90 of 2007 of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum Additional District And Sessions Court, Vizianagaram fixing liability on the appellants herein/APSRTC be and is hereby set aside;
• 3. That the liability to pay compensation amount shall be shouldered by the owner/respondent No.2 herein and the insurance company/ respondent No.3 herein, namely. The United India Insurance Company Limited.
• 4. That the claims Tribunal, respondent No.3/ The United India Insurance Company Limited be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order along with proportionate costs and Interest as ordered in the award by the claims tribunal.
• 5. That the claimant be and is hereby entitled to apply to the claims tribunal and withdraw the entire amount.
• 6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

SDI- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
• 2. Three CD Copies

SAM

TAC

HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025

DECREE

MACMA.No.3001 of 2012

ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A

$\overset{\mathfrak{p}}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{\epsilon}$