APSRTC, DEPOT MANAGER Vs. CHUKKA DURGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real question in this appeal is between the appellants on the one side and the fifth respondent-insurer on the other side. Respondents 1 and 2 laid MOP No. 51 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Vizianagaram claiming compensation for the death of Chukka Marayya. Respondents 3 and 4 were arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal. Respondents 4 and 5 before the Tribunal filed the present appeal. Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, which is the insurer is respondent No. 5 in the appeal. The bus bearing Registration No. AP-35T-4145 is owned by respondent No. 4 herein. Respondent No. 3 herein was the driver of the bus at the relevant time. The bus was hired to APSRTC. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner leading to the death of Chukka Marayya. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the children of the deceased, laid the claim. After due consideration, an award was passed for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Appellants 1 and 2 as well as respondents 3 to 5 were held liable jointly and severally by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC, represented by respondents 4 and 5 before the Tribunal, preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Curiously, the claimants entered appearance in the appeal and advanced submissions. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as the offending bus was not owned by APSRTC, but was hired, the owner of the bus and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to the exclusion of the hirer. He placed reliance upon Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum, 2011 8 SCC 142. In that case, in similar circumstances, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the insurer would still be liable to pay compensation exclusively and absolutely. In common judgment dated 30.3.2012 in MACMA Nos. 1956 and 1960 of 2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court placed reliance upon this decision and held that the insurer and APSRTC shared liability at 50% each. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the liability of the fifth respondent-insurer is absolute, so much so, the appellants are not liable. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, I consider that the owner and insurer of the bus are indeed jointly and severalty liable. However, APSRTC as the hirer is not exempted from liability. It is also jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. To this extent, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as the Tribunal made the appellants as well as respondents 3 to 5 jointly and severally liable.

(3.) Another aspect, however, has crept up in this case. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was deposited to the credit of MOP No. 51 of 2002 before the Tribunal by the insurer as well as by APSRTC. As the insurer deposited the amounts at the outset, the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same in full satisfaction of the award. An amount of Rs. 1,31,153/- was withdrawn by the claimants towards full satisfaction of the claim.