THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.387 of 2007
JUDGEMENT:
A.S.No.387 of 2007 is filed against the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.1 of 2006 dated 20.02.2007. The suit is filed for recovery of money against the defendant. The plaintiff stated that defendant is the owner of the bus bearing No.AP 36 U 3126. The plaintiff hired the bus and also agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 08.03.1999 for a period of 3 years and as per clause 5 (iv), owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations like claim due to accident payable under provisions of M.V. Act/Rules and that A.P.S.R.T.C i.e, the plaintiff shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by the motor accident Tribunal in respect of accidents. The clause 5(i) and 5(iv) of the agreement read as follows: " i) The owner shall keep the bus road worthy in terms of chapter-iv of the M.V.Act, 1988 and rules made there under from time to time, by carrying out necessary maintenance and repairs at his own cost.
iv) The owner shall be responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations. Like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of MV Act/Rules and APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by motor accidents claims Tribunal in respect of accidents."
2. In pursuance of the agreement defendant has provided the bus with a licensed driver to the plaintiff on 10.01.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., when the said bus reached near Suryamukhi Spinning Mills, Bhongir, the driver of the bus driven the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a scooterist resulting in the death of the said scooterist. As such, Cr.No.4 of 2000 was registered against the driver and legal heirs of the deceased filed O.P.No.216 of 2000 claiming for compensation on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal. The said Tribunal granted Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.06.2001 to the legal heirs. The respondent No.2 in the claim petition filed an appeal before the High Court and the appeal was allowed directing the APSRTC to pay compensation. As such, the petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.24 of 2005 and accordingly plaintiff/APSRTC paid Rs.16,97,775/- towards compensation including costs and interest. In view of the Clause 5(iv) of the agreement, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the said compensation from the 2 defendant. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides and evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff with interest at 7.5% from the date of the suit till realisation of the said amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant in the suit preferred appeal.
3. He mainly contended that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata in view of the Judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.1385 of 2002 dated 16.09.2002. As C.M.A.No.1385 of 2002 is filed against the Judgement of the Tribunal in O.P.No.216 of 2000 dated 21.06.2001, he stated that the Judgment of C.M.A became final. He also contended that clause 5(iv) of Ex.A1 is illegal and unenforceable. The trial Court erroneously interpreted the definition of "owner" given in Section 2(30) of the M.V.Act, 1988. It placed reliance only on the first limb. It is the second limb which is applicable to this case. In the second limb the owner of the vehicle leased the vehicle under an agreement of lease. Considering the situation, where vehicle is leased, as per Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court hirer is considered to be the owner. He further stated that the trial Court granted 3 excess rate of interest and requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of the respondent counsel. Admittedly, APSRTC hired the vehicle and they also entered into an agreement regarding fixation of liability. As per caluse 5(iv) of the agreement only the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. The plaintiff deposited the compensation amount as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court to an extent Rs.16,97,775/- and filed suit for recovery of the said amount from the appellant herein and it was rightly decreed by the trial Court. The owner of the vehicle filed appeal only with an intention to prolong the issue and to delay the proceedings. As such the ground of appeal raised by him cannot be considered. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the trial Court and it needs no interference. Though, appellant stated that interest granted by the trial Court is excess, the rate of interest was as per the RBI guidelines. Therefore, the rate of interest granted by the trial Court is also confirmed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court in O.S.No.1 of 2006 dated 20.02.2007. 4
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 26.10.2022 tri 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.387 of 2007 DATED: 26.10.2022 TRI 6