CH.MARUTHI Vs. PORANDLA SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. M.A. C.M.A. No.4669 of 2008 :

(2.) The appellant/1st respondent/owner of the bus, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 31.12.2007 in O.P.No.598 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-I Additional District judge, Karimnagar, preferred this appeal, besides other grounds, on the ground that the Tribunal erred while exonerating the liability of APSRTC and Insurance Company while fastening the liability against the appellant for payment of compensation to respondents 1 to 3/claimants.

(3.) The appellant contended that Ex.B2-policy was renewed by the 5th respondent as a continuation of the proposal form submitted in the year 2001 clearly indicating that the vehicle would be hired to the th respondent-RTC, therefore, the contention of the 5th respondent that the appellant had not intimated to the insurance company with regard to hiring of the bus is not correct and consequently the finding of the Tribunal that the RTC and the Insurance Company are not liable to pay the compensation is nothing but unsustainable in the eye of law.