Telangana High Court
Y. Ravinder Reddy vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 26 April, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.1130 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of 2nd respondent to recover the compensation amount awarded by the MACT- cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in MVOP No.1455/2007 dated 30.06.2009 vide Notice in No.L2/785(258)/07-HCZ dated 24.10.2011 received by the petitioner on 11.11.2011 from the hire bills payable to the petitioner for the bus No.AP 29 ta 0185 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri D.V. ChalapathiRao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri ThoomSrinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was successful bidder in the tender notification issued by the 1st respondent for supply of passenger bus and subsequently entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for operating passenger bus bearing No. AP-29-TA-0185 as per terms and conditions laid down in the Agreement. The petitioner's bus is insured with National Insurance Company Limited vide Insurance Policy No.351100/31/07/6300000328 for the period 05.07.2007 to 04.07.2009, covering all third party liabilities in the course of its operation. While so, the bus met with an accident on 14.10.2007 resulting in the death of a 2 person aged 18 years, and an FIR is also registered by the concerned police and the charge sheet is also filed in C.C.No.1733/2007 dated 17.11.2007 and one KonchalaNagendramma and 2 others filed O.P.No.1455 of 2007 on the file of MACT, Rangareddy and the same was decreed in favour of claimants for Rs.2,56,000/- together with interest at 7.5% and costs by fixing the liability jointly and severally against the 1strespondent, the Insurance company and the petitioner. The 2nd respondent issued impugned Notice dated 24.10.2011 advising the petitioner to prevail upon the insurance company to comply with the award failing which necessary action will be taken to recover the compensation awarded from the bills payable to the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the proposed action to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the bills payable to the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Kulsum, and therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notice dated 24.10.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Tribunal fixes the liability jointly and severally on the 1st respondent-TSRTC, petitioner, and the insurance company, it is illegal on the part of the respondent authorities to fasten the liability on the petitioner when the petitioner's bus is insured with the insurance company and the insurance policy is valid and subsisting as on the date of accident. 3
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-TSRTC by drawing attention to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered upon by the petitioner with the 1st respondent-Corporation would contend that "the owner shall be responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations, like cliam due to accident payable under the provisions of M.V.Act, 1988 / Rules and APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents.". Learned Standing Counsel would therefore submit that the impugned notice does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court.
6. Having considered rival submissions, it is pertinent to note that the accident took place on 14.10.2007 and the claimants filed O.P.No.1455/2007 before the MACT, Rangareddy, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased K. Krishna caused in the said accident, and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from 12.12.2007 to till the date of deposit and costs of Rs.3,854/-. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.1455 of 2007 would show that PW.2 deposed in his cross examination that on 14.10.2007 at about 5:30 PM, he and one Kunchala Krishna were prceeding by walk from North Hasthinapuram towards Venkataramana Colony and when they reached near Tea Powder 4 Godown at Omkar Nagar and when deceased Krishna was crossing the road the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-29-TA-0185 drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Krishna, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment but he died while undergoing treatment. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered by LB Nagar Police in Crime No.1054/07 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the bus. Ex.A4 is the Motor vehicle inspector report wherein the Inspector opined that the accident was not due to the mechanical defects of the bus. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy and the insurance policy was valid and subsisting from 05.07.2007 to 04.07.2008, and as per the evidence the accident occurred on 14.10.2007. The Tribunal by relying on the judgment rendered in 2004(4) ALT 304 held that "the insurance policy runs with the vehicle and that liability of insurer will not cease even if the contract of hierer is not intimated to the 2nd respondent and so the corporation is vicariously liable for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the insurer is liable to indemnify the corporation who is deemed to be the owner of the vehicle."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum 1, held as under:
1
Civil Appeal No.5901 of 2011 :: AIRONLINE 2011 SC 451 5 "45. Thus, looking to the matter from every angle, we are of the considered opinion that Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of payment of compensation to Third Parties orClaimants. Admittedly, owner of the vehicle has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy or provisions of the Act. The owner had taken the insurance so as to meet such type of liability which may arise on account of use of the vehicle."
8. In view of the judgment rendered in Kulsum (1 supra), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to indemnify the insured/petitioner, and therefore the impugned notice of the respondent- TSRTC to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the bills payable to the petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the Notice in No.L2/785(258)/07-HCZ dated 24.10.2011. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice NageshBheemapaka 26th April, 2024 ksm