Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Neelima vs A.P. State Road Transport ... on 26 October, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
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
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
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.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 26.10.2022
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.387 of 2007
DATED: 26.10.2022
TRI
