MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC Vs. BANDARU VENKATA NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.-3rd respondent filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, (for short, Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 452 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,29,000/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty nine thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum with the finding that the 3rd respondent alone is liable and not the respondents 1 and 2 as against the claim of the claimants 1 to 4 of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, the learned standing counsel for the appellant (APSRTC), Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) and Sri P. Harinadh Gupta learned counsel for the 6th respondent (insurer). The 5th respondent (owner of the bus hired to appellant RTC-served is remained absent and thus taken as heard the 5th respondent to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of appeal by the (appellant) 3rd respondent-APSRTC in nutshell are that though it is the hire bus with A.P.S.R.T.C. since belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent insurer of the claim petition, instead of finding the liability jointly and severally against the respondents 1 and 2; the Tribunal went wrong in fastening the liability on the A.P.S.R.T.C. only and thus the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case in arriving such a wrong conclusion; besides the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and outcome of wrong application of multiplier and wrong taking of the income of the deceased and hence to allow the appeal, by exonerating the APSRTC besides reducing the quantum.

(3.) It is in support of above contentions of the 3rd respondent, relied upon the Apex Court's expression in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum, 2011 8 SCC 142 and the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in APSRTC, Hyderabad v. B. Kanakaratnabai, 2013 1 ALD 644 and another Division Bench Judgment dated 31.01.2013 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2821 of 2011 following the full bench expression mainly on the contention of the insured and insurer of the hire bus are liable jointly and severally and not the 3rd respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. The claimants sought for joint liability by saying on quantum as what is awarded is low and to enhance the same if at all.