JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A very short issue, involved in the dispute, is primarily between the appellant Insurance Company and the respondent No. 1 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'Corporation'). The respondent No. 2 claimants as dependents of deceased Sajjan Bai w/o Claimant No. 1 and mother of claimant No. 2 had lodged a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in respect of an accident, which took place on 20.4.1983, resulting in death of Smt. Sajjan Bai, who was a passenger in the Bus. 3. The facts, not in dispute, are that the respondent No. 1 R.S.R.T.C. had hired a bus on contract from its owner to be plied by it for its own business and the vehicle was being run under its control and instructions as a Corporation vehicle at the time of the accident took place. The vehicle was insured with the present appellant by the owner of the vehicle, from whom, the Corporation has acquired the vehicle on contract. The Corporation as well as Insurance Company had paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- each as "No Fault Liability", to the claimants to be adjusted against the claim, as may be awarded by the Tribunal, if it is more than Rs. 15,000/-. 4. The Insurance Company's case is that though the vehicle was insured with them as public transport vehicle under the terms and conditions of policy, the liability was not to exceed Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and its liability was not more than Rs. 15,000/-, which it has discharged by depositing the amount in accordance with the provisions of "No Fault Liability". No further liability could be fastened on them. 5. The Corporation has pleaded before the Tribunal that it was not liable for the compensation payable to the passengers because it was not owner of the vehicle and it could not be saddled with any liability in respect of the accident in question. 6. No further liability could be fastened on them. 5. The Corporation has pleaded before the Tribunal that it was not liable for the compensation payable to the passengers because it was not owner of the vehicle and it could not be saddled with any liability in respect of the accident in question. 6. The tribunal upheld the contention of Corporation, by holding that the owner of vehicle is responsible for indemnifying the passenger in case of injury caused to him or to the dependent where the passenger dies due to accident by the vehicle owned by it and the contract between the owner and corporation could not be pressed into service for holding corporation responsible for liability of compensation arising due to accident. 7. However, with aforesaid finding the Tribunal did not order refund of Rs. 15,000/- paid by it as "No Fault Liability" from the owner or the insurer. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of insurer about its limited liability. 8. The Award dated 30.4.88 was challenged by the Corporation for claiming refund of the amount, which has been deposited by it, as "No Fault Liability" in the Tribunal, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 74/91. The Insurance Company (present appellant) filed a cross-objection in the said appeal. It challenged the finding holding it liable for full compensation as well as the finding holding the corporation not at all liable. The learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment under appeal allowed the appeal of the corporation and rejected the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company, on the sole ground that the cross-objections by one respondent against another respondent is not permissible. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival contention raised on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal must succeed. 10. Firstly, it must be held that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the cross-objection by the Insurance Company treating the cross- objection filed by the Insurance Company as a cross-objection against co- respondent. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection to challenge any finding reached in favour of any co-respondent in the appeal but has filed the cross-objection in appeal filed by the Corporation. 11. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection to challenge any finding reached in favour of any co-respondent in the appeal but has filed the cross-objection in appeal filed by the Corporation. 11. The law is well settled, firstly that the findings recorded in a suit or in a litigation, not only binds the plaintiff and defendants inter se but can also bind co-defendant in the suit, if such finding decides any issue between them inter se and the same operates as res judicata in subsequent suit. Obviously in appeal, the co-defendants are not necessarily arrayed as co- respondents. Like it has happened in present case, one of the co-defendants may appeal against judgment arraying other co-defendant also, as respondent. In such event if such co-defendant is aggrieved with any finding or the final order to the extent it is against him, and is integrally connected with relief claimed by him, his right to file cross-objection is not restricted. 12. The principle was clearly stated by Supreme Court in Pannalal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1516 : "that Order 41 Rule 22 permits, as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases, such as where the relief sought against the appellant in such objection is inter-mixed with the relief granted to the other respondents, so that the relief against the appellant cannot be granted without the question being re- opened between the objecting respondent and other respondents, that an objection under Order 41 Rule 22 can be directed against the other respondents." 13. In the present case, it is apparent that the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 37,000/-. It has absolved the corporation from liability altogether, by holding the owner of vehicle and insurer liable for whole amount out of which Rs. 15,000/- was already paid by each of the corporation and the insurer. No award of refund was made in favour of Corporation. This restricted insurer's liability in effect to Rs. 7000/- only. In the circumstances the two findings i.e. whether insurance company is liable for full compensation and whether corporation being not liable for compensation at all and is entitled to refund of Rs. 15,000/- paid by him, which if ultimately upheld are liable to increase liability of insurer objection. This restricted insurer's liability in effect to Rs. 7000/- only. In the circumstances the two findings i.e. whether insurance company is liable for full compensation and whether corporation being not liable for compensation at all and is entitled to refund of Rs. 15,000/- paid by him, which if ultimately upheld are liable to increase liability of insurer objection. If the insurer is successful in its contention that the corporation is not entitled to any refund on the ground of erroneous finding reached by Tribunal, its liability substantially stand reduced even if it fails on first issue, the two issues are integrally connected. 14. Moreover, cross-objection of the insurance is directed objecting to findings recorded in favour of corporation, the appellant, therefore, question of applying principle that no cross-objection can be directed to challenge a finding recorded in favour of crosspondent has no application in present case. The cross-objection is directed to upset the finding recorded in favour of appellant. 15. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in rejecting the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company without examining the merit of objections. 16. There is no merit in the findings recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the corporation from liability arising out of the accident which resulted in injury/death of the passengers travelling in the bus which was plied for corporations' business under its control and instructions though it was acquired by him under a contract of hire from its owner. 17. The position of law is no more in doubt and explained by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others (1997 ACJ 1148) that the privity of contract exist between the passengers of the bus only with the Corporation to whom they paid the fare. The safety of the passengers under the said contract of carrying the passengers is responsibility of the corporation. 18. The word 'owner' as has been defined under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 was held not to be exhaustive so as to exclude the transports like the Corporation. Should the corporations hire the buses for their purpose on lease or otherwise from owners of such vehicles and then carry on their business of transporting passengers through such vehicles, they too fall within the definition of the 'owner'. The Court said that : "The definition of 'owner' under section 2(19) of the Act is not exhaustive. Should the corporations hire the buses for their purpose on lease or otherwise from owners of such vehicles and then carry on their business of transporting passengers through such vehicles, they too fall within the definition of the 'owner'. The Court said that : "The definition of 'owner' under section 2(19) of the Act is not exhaustive. It has, therefore, to be construed, in a wider sense, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The expression 'owner' must include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession and control of the vehicle and under whose directions and commands the driver is obliged to operate the bus. To confine the meaning of owner to the registered owner only would, in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer, not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident. The liability of the 'owner' is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident." 19. The aforesaid case was also on behalf of Rajasthan State Road Corporation, who is appellant in this case, and its plea to absolve itself from liability arising out of the accident which has occurred due to negligence of the drivers employed by it and who was driving under the instructions and control of its employer. The Court further held that : "So far as the passengers of the ill-fated bus are concerned, their privity of contract was only with the RSRTC to whom they had paid the fare for travelling in that bus and their safety therefore became the responsibility of the RSRTC while travelling in the bus. They had no privity of contract with Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus at all." The Court further went on to say after examining the conditions of the agreement between the owner and the corporation on the facts in that case that in view of conditions 4 to 7 of the agreement (supra), the RSRTC must be held to be vicariously liable for the tort committed by the driver while plying the bus under contract of the RSRTC. The General proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer, that is the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible vicariously for the tort committed by the concerned employee during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority. 20. The question whether a condition in an agreement with the owner to be absolved itself, from the liability arising out of the accident, is invalid as public policy, was not examined though the finding was recorded by the High Court that the condition 15 of the agreement, in the aforesaid case, in the contract to the extent, it shifts the liability arising out of the accident from the RSRTC to the owner, may be against the public policy. 21. In the present case firstly the terms of agreement with the owner have not been produced, secondly it has never been the case of corporation that they only hired the services of driver but the driver continued to drive the vehicle on the instructions and directions of the owner, so as to hold him only vicariously liable for damages arising out of the act of the driver who was in the employment of the original owner. The corporation cannot be absolved from the liability arising out of use of the vehicle in question at public place, which was, otherwise, not disputed to be driven under its control and instructions as vehicle engaged by it for the purpose of plying it as part of its business of public passenger transport, so as to claim absolution from the vicarious liability. 22. As a result, the appeal succeeds and the findings exonerating the Corporation from the liability arising out of the accident recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the cross- objections filed by the Insurance Company is set aside and the Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent, it absolves the corporation from liability arising out of accident in question. We further hold that the corporation being the only person who has privity of contract with its passengers, who, it had agreed to carry on the vehicle operated by it on payment of hire. We further hold that the corporation being the only person who has privity of contract with its passengers, who, it had agreed to carry on the vehicle operated by it on payment of hire. The liability for the safe travel of passengers is implicit in such agreement and the corporation is liable for the actions of the driver and conductor of vehicle plied for the purpose of its business and who are to act under its control, instructions and directions during the course of such journey in which accident occurs. The Corporation cannot claim, any amount by way of refund, but is liable for full amount of compensation payable to claimants that has been determined by the Tribunal. The insurer's liability under the policy being not exceeding Rs. 15,000/- per passenger, it is not liable to any further sums. 23. The Special Appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of learned single Judge is set aside. The appeal filed by corporation Civil Misc. Appeal No. 74/91 is dismissed and the cross-objection by the insurer is allowed as above, no orders as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******