Judgment 1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2008 passed in MVC No.1451/2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court-3 and Addl. MACT, Hassan. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 14.2.2003 when the claimant was returning in the jeep bearing Regn.No.KA-13-G-214 on Arasikere-Channarayapatna road, near Shankarapura village around 8.30 PM, the bus bearing regn.no.KA-01-A-7168 which was being driven by its driver in rash manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the jeep causing the accident, on account of which the bumper, headlight, radiator, bannet of the said jeep bearing Regn.No.KA-13-G-214 was damaged. In the said circumstances, the claimant preferred the above petition seeking compensation for the damage caused to the said vehicle and the expenses incurred to get the same repaired. 3. The 1st respondent – KSRTC in the statement of objections though denied the cause of accident etc, it has specifically pleaded that the owner of the bus was solely responsible to pay any claim arising out of any accident and the said bus was taken on hire from the original owner viz., Iqbal Ahamad of M/s Road Lines Private Limited. Bangalore. Further, it is pleaded that the KSRTC is only a lessee. 4. In the statement of objections filed by the 3rd respondent – insurance company, amongst other pleas it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured during the relevant period by the original owner of the vehicle and the liability if any, is subject to the terms and conditions thereon. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that though the insurance company has not disputed its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal by relying upon the decision rendered in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs. B G SUMA reported in 2004 ACJ 883 and also another decision reported in 2008 ACJ 705 held that the 1st responding – KSRTC is deemed to be the owner of the offending bus and as such the KSRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation and exonerated the 4th respondent – insurance company from indemnifying the KSRTC. 6. 6. The 1st respondent – KSRTC, Bangalore Division aggrieved by the said judgment and award has preferred this appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the appellant entered into contract with the owner of the vehicle i.e., 4th respondent herein and according to the terms and conditions of the contract so entered, respondent no.3 insurer is liable to indemnify even the appellant as the appellant being hirer, steps into the shoe of the original owner of the vehicle. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision reported in UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. KULSUM AND OTHERS reported in 2011(8) SCC 142 and submitted that even as per the said decision, the 3rd respondent - insurance company is liable to indemnify the appellant. 8. Admittedly, the cause of accident, the amount of compensation awarded etc. is not in dispute. What is disputed is only the finding given by the tribunal making the appellant exclusively liable to pay the compensation to the claimant viz., the 1st respondent herein. Further, the fact that the appellant herein taking the vehicle belonging to the 4th respondent for hire on contract basis is also not disputed. 9. In the case of UPSRTC vs. KULSUM & ORS. Relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, it is observed as hereunder: “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”. 10. For the sake of convenience, Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is excerpted hereunder: “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement”. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines as to who is the owner of the vehicle and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of lease, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is defined as owner. 11. In such circumstances, the insurance company who is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is in fact liable to indemnify the KSRTC/appellant and it cannot be exonerated. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be modified accordingly. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is allowed modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2008 passed in MVC No.1451/2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court – 3 and Addl. MACT, Hassan to the extent that the 3rd respondent – insurance company shall indemnify the appellant with regard to the compensation awarded in the case. Office to draw the award accordingly. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/KSRTC.