APHC010476122007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the fifth The Honourable Ms Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Between: M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and M.Venkataramaiah and Others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the respondent 1. P.Hemachandra The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2690 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Venkataramaiah and Others ...Respondents ppellant: Amancharla Satish Babu espondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] two thousand and twenty six Bhanumathi 2690 of 2007 ...Appellant Respondents APHC010243902014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.794 of 2014 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman & M.D. Hyd. and M.Venkatramaiah Tirupathi and Others Counsel for the appellant: 1. W. V. S. Rajeswari Counsel for the respondents: 1. P. Hemachandra 2. Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: 2 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.794 of 2014 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman & M.D. Hyd. M.Venkatramaiah Tirupathi and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: W. V. S. Rajeswari Counsel for the respondents: P. Hemachandra Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.794 of 2014 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman & M.D. Hyd. ...Appellant ...Respondents 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award, dated 19.10.2006, in M.V.O.P. No.79 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.2690 of 2007 is filed by M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2014 is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2690 of 2007 are the claimants; the insurance company is the respondent No.2; the respondent No.5 in this appeal is owner of the bus and the respondent No.6 in this appeal is the A.P.S.R.T.C. which hired the bus are the respondents Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal. The parties are arrayed hereafter as before the Tribunal, for the purpose of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of Smt. M. Bhulakshmi (in short, “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident. The first claimant is the husband. The claimants Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. b. On 16.06.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in a bus bearing No. AP 03/U-3577, as she wanted to get down from the bus at S.B.I. Training Center, K.T. by-pass road, Tirupati, the conductor of the bus opened the door and the driver of the bus drove at high speed and suddenly applied brakes. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her head. She 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 was taken to S.V.I.M.S., Tirupati, where she succumbed to injuries at 1.30 p.m., on the same day. c. The deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day as a tailor. She was aged about 35 years. The bus was insured by the appellant. A.P.S.R.T.C. hired the bus owned by the respondent No.5 herein. Therefore, the claimants sought compensation against the owner, the hirer and the insurer of the bus with joint and several liability. 5. The owner remained ex parte. 6. The insurance company filed a counter putting the claimants to strictly prove the averments and further stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the conductor of the bus and not due to the conduct of the driver and moreover a charge sheet was also filed against the conductor of the bus, vide Crime No.89 of 2001 and therefore, A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable for the negligence of its employee who was the conductor. It is further pleaded that the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years and the rate of interest and compensation sought by the claimants is also stated to be excessive. 7. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed a separate counter denying the liability of the conductor and also stating that the driver of the bus is responsible for causing the accident and that the driver of the bus is the employee of the owner of the bus and that A.P.S.R.T.C. is not liable as per the agreement of hiring of the bus between the owner of the bus and A.P.S.R.T.C., particularly clause 5 (iv) of the agreement. 8. On behalf of the claimants, husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and R. Purushotham, an eye witness of the accident was examined as P.W.2. The claimants produced 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of A.P.S.R.T.C., V. Gurumurthy, Senior Assistant, was examined as R.W.1 and filed a photostat copy of the hire purchase agreement between A.P.S.R.T.C. and the owner of the bus as Ex.B1 and a copy of the policy issued by the insurance company in respect of bus as Ex.B2. 9. In so far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal opined that the deceased died due to the negligence of the conductor of the bus. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that, the deceased was active in her life and, notionally assessing, her contribution would be Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards her personal expenses and multiplying the multiplicand Rs.24,000/- by ‘16’ applicable to persons aged 35 years and calculated the loss of income @ Rs.3,84,000/-. That apart, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for loss of estate was granted as compensation. Thus, a total amount of Rs.4,29,000/- was awarded as compensation payable. 11. Referring to Clause 5 (iv) of the hire purchase agreement in Ex.B1 and negligence of the conductor, the Tribunal fastened liability against all the respondents, holding them jointly and severally liable. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.2690 of 2007 stating that it is not liable since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the conductor who is an employee of A.P.S.R.T.C. and also on the ground that compensation granted is excessive. 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 13. Against the same award and the decree, M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2014 was filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. 14. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that since the accident was caused due to the negligence of the conductor, who is an employee of A.P.S.R.T.C., the insurance company is not liable, as A.P.S.R.T.C. is not the insured; and that the insurance company would be liable only if the owner of the hired bus were liable to pay damages due to any negligence of the driver of the bus, which is not the case in the present matter. He further submitted that the fact that the charge sheet was also filed against the conductor alone, shows that the driver of the bus was not responsible for causing the death of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability against the insurance company also, merely based on the evidence of P.W.2, who attributed negligence to the conductor as well as the driver. 15. The learned counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that since the bus was taken on hire with a condition to provide the vehicle along with insurance coverage, there is no liability to A.P.S.R.T.C. and that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver, who is under the control of the insured and not because of the negligence of the conductor, however, even if the conductor is also negligent, the insurance company cannot disown its liability. It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously held that the conductor of the bus was negligent and that his negligence caused the accident, in spite of admission of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving and sudden application of brakes by the driver. Since the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver employed by the insured, and by virtue of clause 5(iv) of the agreement for hire, the insurance company alone is 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decisions in A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. Mullapudi Srinivasa Rao and others1; Ch.Maruthi Vs. Porandla Susheela and others2; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajenderi Devi & Others 3 and; A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad and another Vs. B.Kanakaratnabai and others4. The learned counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened any liability on A.P.S.R.T.C. and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the claim petition may be dismissed against A.P.S.R.T.C. 16. Whereas, the learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 17. Admittedly, the bus was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C. from the insured with a condition to provide bus along with the driver and insurance coverage. According to the insurance company, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the conductor as the door had been opened by the conductor even before the bus came to halt. The charge sheet was filed only against the conductor and initially, there was no allegation of negligence of the driver of the bus. However, P.W.2 examined by the claimants deposed about the rash and negligence of both the driver and the conductor of the bus. No witness, much less, the driver of the bus was examined to deny the negligence attributed against him. The charge sheet may be a piece of evidence to appreciate the same along with the other evidence on record, but not 1 M.A.C.M.A.No.754 of 2017, dt.10.07.2023 2 2018 (2) ALD 115 3 2020 Law Suit (SC) 429 4 2013 (1) ALD 644 (F.B.) 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 the substantive evidence to establish the fact that the accused therein was solely negligent and caused the accident. 18. It is settled law that the Tribunal has to adjudicate the matter before it basing on the evidence on record. A cumulative reading of the evidence noted above shows that the conductor was negligent in opening the door of the bus before it came to halt and the driver is also negligent in driving the bus and thus both contributed equally for causing the accident. The Tribunal erred in holding that the conductor alone was responsible for the cause of the accident. When the Tribunal holds that the conductor alone is liable for the accident, it is erroneous to hold that the other respondents are liable, since the conductor is not employed by the registered owner of the bus. 19. In respect of the negligence of the conductor, A.P.S.R.T.C. is vicariously liable in respect of the liability of the conductor and the owner of the bus / insured cannot be held liable as he was not the employee of the insured. Insofar as the driver of the bus is concerned, he was engaged by the insured and therefore, if there is any negligence on his part, the insured being employer is vicariously liable and consequently, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. As already discussed above, since the driver and conductor are held to be responsible for causing the accident, it is not erroneous to fasten liability against all the respondents as directed by the Tribunal. 20. In all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C, noted above, the driver employed by the hirer / insured / owner of the bus was responsible in causing the accident and the liability of the insurance company on the ground of non-payment of additional premium under IMT 44 to cover risk when vehicle is given on hire or to 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2690 of 2007 & 794 of 2014 cover risk of passengers. The questions of liability in the case on hand are different. 21. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the amount. It is represented that the insurance company had already deposited 50% of the amount of compensation along with proportionate costs and interest. 22. There is no merit in the appeals. 23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B S BHANUMATHI, J Dt.05.02.2026 JLSR / RAR