Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27588 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 590 of 2015 Appellant :- U.P.Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Throu Its R.M.Hardoi Respondent :- Manzoor Ali And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Akhter Abbas,Prabhakar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Zafar Aziz,Shravan Kumar Tiwari and Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 624 of 2008 Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corp. Through Its R.M. Respondent :- Jagat Narain Dixit And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Akhter Abbas,Prabhakar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Akhlaq Ali,Ashok Kumar Sharma,Lalji Prasad Shukla - Ii,Summaya Kidwai and Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 86 of 2005 Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Thru R.M. Respondent :- Ram Prakash Yadav And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Tewari,Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh,Ravendra Pratap Singh and Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 284 of 2003 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C.Through Regional Manager Respondent :- Mishree Lal And Others 4 Counsel for Appellant :- D.K.Srivastava,Akhter Abbas,Prabhakar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Sachindra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- B.K. Awasthi,Shalini Gupta,Vivek Kumar Verma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company and Sri Shakeel Ahamad, learned counsel for the claimant. 2. Since recall application in First Appeal From Order No. 86 of 2005 has already been allowed vide order of date, as such, the appeal is being heard and decided along with other connected matter. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the issue involved in First Appeal From Order No. 590 of 2015, First Appeal From Order (defective) No. 772 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 624 of 2008, First Appeal From Order No. 86 of 2005 & First Appeal From Order No. 284 of 2003 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the appeals together. For the sake of convenience, the facts of First Appeal From Order No. 590 of 2015 are being taken. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties state that the question involved in the instant appeal stands concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Ors- 2011 (29) LCD 1648 wherein the Apex Court has held that where the Corporation has taken a vehicle for a specific period on a contract then the Corporation would become the owner of the vehicle for the specific period. It was held that if the Corporation had become the owner for the specific period and the vehicle having been insured at the instance of original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the Insurance Policy in existence to the Corporation and thus the insurance company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation in case any accident is caused by the offending vehicle. 5. The argument is that an accident having been caused by a vehicle that had been taken on contract by the Corporation and the liability to pay the said compensation has been fastened on the corporation although the vehicle was admittedly insured consequently, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra) it is the insurance company which would be liable to pay the amount of compensation/award. 6. It is further argued that when the vehicle was insured and although the accident has been caused by the vehicle which was on contract with the Corporation yet keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra), the learned tribunal should have directed the insurance company to pay the awarded amount instead of the Corporation being directed to pay the same and consequently, the order passed by the learned tribunal merits to be set aside so far as it directs the Corporation to pay the aforesaid amount. 7. To the aforesaid proposition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra), there is no dispute by any of the parties. 8. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra) are reproduced below:- 36. Thus, for all practical purposes, for the relevant period, the Corporation had become the owner of the vehicle for the specific period. If the Corporation had become the owner even for the specific period and the vehicle having been insured at the instance of original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the Insurance Policy in existence to the Corporation and thus Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 9. A perusal of the award passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that although the learned tribunal has held that the vehicle was on contract with the Corporation and it was insured yet it is the Corporation which is held liable to pay the said amount yet keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra) it is the insurance company which is liable to pay the amount. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award as passed by the learned tribunal to the extent it directs the Corporation to pay compensation is set aside. It is provided that the concerned insurance company would pay the awarded amount to the claimants. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench