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
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.
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
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:
Civil Appeal No.5901 of 2011 :: AIRONLINE 2011 SC 451
"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
