V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS common order shall dispose of sixteen C. M. As. being c. M. A. No. 1529 of 1998 and other fifteen c. M. As. and five C. R. Ps. being C. R. P. No. 2452 of 1999. These matters are filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Warangal branch, aggrieved by the common order dated 11. 4. 1997 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, warangal, in O. P. No. 272 of 1995 and batch and hence the common judgment. The parties are referred to by their status before the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 is owner of a private bus bearing No. AEO 4237. The bus was hired and plied by the Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A. P. S. R. T. C. ). On 27. 1. 1995 the bus was involved in an accident while the same was driven by the respondent No. 1 and going from Venkirala village to Warangal by reason of the bus hitting a culvert and falling into a trench. As a result of the accident seven persons died and eighteen persons suffered injuries. The claimants filed as many as thirty-six petitions under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming damages for death and injuries. The Tribunal appears to have dismissed eleven o. Ps. and allowed twenty-five O. Ps. The respondent No. 4 insurance company filed nineteen C. M. As. and six C. R. Ps. , out of which sixteen C. M. As. and five C. R. Ps. were listed today. Be it noted that C. R. Ps. were filed because the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less than Rs. 10,000. The details of these cases are as under: Sl. No. C. M. A. No. O. P. No. Death/ Injury Amount claimed Amount awarded 1. 1529 of 1998 285 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 30,500 Rs. 30,500 2. 1535 of 1998 277 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 48,500 Rs. 40,000 3. 1753 of 1998 651 of 1995 Death Rs. 1,80,000 Rs. 1,68,000 4. 2469 of 1998 364 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 28,000 5. 2532 of 1998 282 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 41,500 Rs. 20,000 6. 2564 of 1998 284 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 25,500 Rs. 17,000 7. 2565 of 1998 281 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 15,500 Rs. 10,000 8. 2566 of 1998 276 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 48,500 Rs. 1,68,000 4. 2469 of 1998 364 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 28,000 5. 2532 of 1998 282 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 41,500 Rs. 20,000 6. 2564 of 1998 284 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 25,500 Rs. 17,000 7. 2565 of 1998 281 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 15,500 Rs. 10,000 8. 2566 of 1998 276 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 48,500 Rs. 35,000 9. 2567 of 1998 366 of 1998 Death Rs. 3,00,000 Rs. 2,07,000 10. 2568 of 1998 272 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 36,500 Rs. 26,000 11. 2571 of 1998 332 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 25,000 Rs. 18,000 12. 2572 of 1998 411 of 1995 Death Rs. 2,00,000 Rs. 65,000 13. 2573 of 1998 658 of 1995 Death Rs. 95,000 Rs. 75,000 14. 2592 of 1998 296 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 45,500 Rs. 21,000 15. 2594 of 1998 273 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 20,500 Rs. 20,500 16. 3190 of 1998 376 of 1995 Death Rs. 1,50,000 Rs. 1,49,400 17. 3201 of 1998 547 of 1995 Death Rs. 1,50,000 Rs. 1,21,632 18. 3202 of 1998 280 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 41,500 Rs. 29,000 19. 1004 of 1999 C. R. P. No. 323 of 1995 Death Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 65,000 20. 2452 of 1999 329 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 25,000 Rs. 4,500 21. 2453 of 1999 274 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 20,000 Rs. 4,500 22. 2492 of 1999 328 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 20,000 Rs. 4,000 23. 3822 of 2001 327 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 15,000 Rs. 4,000 24. 4463 of 2001 530 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 10,000 Rs. 1,000 25. 7761 of 1998 (C. R. P. SR.) 331 of 1995 Injuries Rs. 15,000 Rs. 3,000 ( 3 ) BEFORE considering various grounds, the defence of the respondents may be briefly noticed. The respondent No. 2, who is owner of the vehicle denied any negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1. He also contended that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 4, that as the vehicle is hired by the respondent no. 3 A. P. S. R. T. C. , the A. P. S. R. T. C. alone is liable to pay the amount. The respondent no. 1. He also contended that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 4, that as the vehicle is hired by the respondent no. 3 A. P. S. R. T. C. , the A. P. S. R. T. C. alone is liable to pay the amount. The respondent no. 3 in their counter-affidavit contended that the respondent No. 2 is employer of the respondent No. 1, that A. P. S. R. T. C. has no control over the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the owner alone is liable to pay the amount. The insurance company filed a counter-affidavit contending that the bus was overloaded beyond the permitted limit and, therefore, it is not liable to pay the amount. On these averments and counter-averments, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident was due to rashness and negligence in driving the r. T. C. hired bus bearing No. AEO 4273 by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation claimed in their respective claim petition, if so, from which of the respondents and what amount? (iii) To what relief? ( 4 ) THE claimants examined as many as 26 witnesses as PWs 1 to 26 and marked exhs. A-l to A-73. The respondent No. 1 remained ex pane. The insurance company examined its Branch Manager as RW 1 besides marking Exhs, B-1 and B-2. On appreciation of the evidence on record the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was negligent in driving the vehicle. On the second issue, the Tribunal placed reliance on unreported judgment of this court in Andhra Pradesh state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ranga Laksh- man, C. M. A. No. 973 of 1984; decided on 26. 10. 1988 and held that the driver belongs to the owner and, therefore, A. P. S. R. T. C. (hirer) is not liable to pay compensation. It also held that owner and the insurance company alone are liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal further proceeded to consider the claims and awarded amounts as indicated in the above Table. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants mr. B. V. Rama Mohan Rao submits that admittedly the conductor was an employee of the respondent No. 3 A. P. S. R. T. C. and that because of overloading of the bus by the conductor only the accident occurred. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants mr. B. V. Rama Mohan Rao submits that admittedly the conductor was an employee of the respondent No. 3 A. P. S. R. T. C. and that because of overloading of the bus by the conductor only the accident occurred. Therefore, A. P. S. R. T. C. alone is responsible. The learned counsel, however, does not dispute that the driver was under the control of the owner. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), in support of the submission that even if the bus belonging to respondent No. 2 is hired by respondent no. 3, the latter cannot escape the liability. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in General manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road trans. Corpn. v. Bodapati Kanaka Ratna-bai, 2001 ACJ 401 (AP ). Learned counsel does not seriously dispute the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and on the question of quantum of compensation awarded to various claimants. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether a. P. S. R. T. C. can be held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN Usha Sehgal v. Chhote, 1985 ACJ 515 (Delhi), the Delhi Transport Corporation (D. T. C.) hired a bus from a private person which met with an accident resulting in death of Narinder Prakash Sehgal. A question arose whether D. T,c. was not liable according to the Act. Delhi High court held as under:"the vehicle in question was a private vehicle of the owner but was under the service of the D. T. C. The counsel for the D. T. C. submitted that D. T. C. was not liable as according to the Motor vehicles Act the liability is only of the owner. Delhi High court held as under:"the vehicle in question was a private vehicle of the owner but was under the service of the D. T. C. The counsel for the D. T. C. submitted that D. T. C. was not liable as according to the Motor vehicles Act the liability is only of the owner. He also submits that by virtue of a contract between the owner and the d. T. C. the liability for payment of compensation in case of accident was passed on to the owner of the bus and not on the D. T. C. In reply the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the private vehicle of the owner was being plied into service of the D. T. C. The licence was also held by the D. T. C. For these reasons, he submitted that the D. T. C. is liable to pay compensation. Considering the provisions of the Act and the contract between the owner and the D. T. C. there is no doubt that it is only the owner who is liable. D. T. C. is not liable. The fact that the vehicle was in the service of the D. T. C. or that the licence was in the name of the D. T. C. would not make any difference. This is because the contract has by a specific term excluded the D. T. C. from any liability and had reiterated the liability of the owner as provided by the Act. " ( 8 ) IN Ranga Lakshman s case, C. M. A. No. 973 of 1984; decided on 26. 10. 1988, this court relied on agreement between the owner and hirer (A. P. S. R. T. C.) and placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High court in Usha Sehgal v. Chhote, 1985 acj 515 (Delhi), held that A. P. S. R. T. C. is not liable. The following observations are relevant:"in this case also on a reading of the language adopted in section 110-B of the Act and the agreement, Exh. B-4, it can be said that the owner of the vehicle is liable ultimately in the event of any accident. The following observations are relevant:"in this case also on a reading of the language adopted in section 110-B of the Act and the agreement, Exh. B-4, it can be said that the owner of the vehicle is liable ultimately in the event of any accident. The A. P. S. R. T. C. is not liable merely because the private vehicle was taken on hire in service of A. P. S. R. T. C. and when the licence was in the name of the owner of the vehicle and what is contemplated in Exh. B-4 about the liability is correct. The contract Exh. B-4 excluded the A. P. S. R. T. C. from any liability. So, the A. P. S. R. T. C. is not liable to pay any amount towards compensation. " ( 9 ) IN General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Bodapati kanaka Ratnabai, 2001 ACJ 401 (AP), the agreement between A. P. S. R. T. C. and the owner was marked as Exh. B-4 and while interpreting the said agreement in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), this court held that A. P. S. R. T. C. is not excluded from the. liability. ( 10 ) IN Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), also the agreement between the r. T. C. and private owner was marked. The Apex Court referred to clause Nos. 6, 7 and 15 of the agreement and came to the conclusion that the owner had not merely transferred the services of the driver to r. T. C. , but until contrary is proved driver has to act under the instructions, control and command of the conductor and other officers of the R. T. C. Thus, referring to the agreement itself it is concluded that in fastening liability to pay compensation on the R. T. C. , the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal has not committed any error. The supreme Court observed as under:"if the original employer is able to establish that when the servant was lent, the effective control over him was also transferred to the hirer, the original owner can avoid his liability and the temporary employer or the hirer, as the case may be, must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the concerned employee in the course of his employment while under the command and control of the hirer notwithstanding the fact that the driver would continue to be on the payroll of the original owner. The proposition based on the general principles noticed above is adequately rebutted in this case not only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties but also on the basis of conditions 6 and 7 (supra), which go to show that the owner had not merely transferred the services of the driver to the R. S. R. T. C. but actual control and the driver was to act under the instructions, control and command of the conductor and other officers of the R. S. R. T. C. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) AS per the decision of the Supreme court referred to hereinabove, if the original employer established that when he lent servant, effective control over him was also transferred to hirer, the original owner can avoid liability and the temporary employer or hirer as the case may be must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the concerned employee. In this case, the driver remained ex pane. Though the owner of the bus, respondent No. 2, filed counter, he did not come into box and produce necessary documents. Even the insurance company which examined its Branch Manager did not take any steps to summon the agreement between the a. P. S. R. T. C. and the respondent No. 2. In the absence of any agreement, the submission that even if there is such clause in the agreement excluding the liability of a. P. S. R. T. C. on the authority of the Apex court in the case of Rajasthan State Road trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), such clause must be held contrary to public policy, cannot be countenanced. This is the most glaring and distinguishable feature in Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), such clause must be held contrary to public policy, cannot be countenanced. This is the most glaring and distinguishable feature in Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Koth-ari (supra), as well as the case in General manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road trans. Corpn. v. Bodapati Kanaka Ratna-bai, 2001 ACJ 401 (AP ). In the absence of agreement between respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is impermissible to surmise as to what are the rights and obligations of respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the agreement. Hence, i am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajasthan state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath kothari (supra), goes against the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. In these cases, the original employer, the respondent No. 2, has failed to establish the necessary facts to come to a conclusion that the hirer (A. P. S. R. T. C.) was having control over the driver and, therefore, it has vicarious liability. ( 12 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the C. M. As. and the C. R. Ps. fail and are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.