JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company assailing the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.468 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Tirupati, wherein the claim of the family members of the deceased B.Chandrababu was accepted in awarding compensation of Rs.1,64,500/-. 2. The facts in issue show that on 28.10.2003 at about 7.15 AM, while the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP 03 V 4274 from Pachikapalam to Kothapalli Mitta and when the jeep reached near Kommaragunta down on Vedurukuppam-Pachikapalam main road, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 03 U 4141, while proceeding from Chittoor to Tirupati, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, lost control over the bus and dashed against the jeep. As a result of which, the deceased Chandrababu, who sat just behind the driver’s seat of the jeep, got crushed and died. The driver of the jeep also died in the said accident. Because of the death of Chandrababu, on whom the entire family was depending, M.V.O.P. came to be filed making the respondents liable jointly and severally to pay compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the trial court. 4. The 1st respondent, being the APSRTC, filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to age, occupation, income and also the manner in which the accident took place. It is stated that as per the Hire agreement, the owner of the bus shall be responsible for all claims and to pay compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunal; that the driver who drove the bus is not employee of this respondent and he is working under the 2nd respondent only and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation; hence, seeks to dismiss the petition to the extent of this respondent with exemplary costs. 5. The 2nd respondent, being the owner of the hired bus, filed the counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, occupation, income of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident took place. 5. The 2nd respondent, being the owner of the hired bus, filed the counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, occupation, income of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident took place. It is stated that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the jeep; that at the instance of the owner of the jeep, a false case is registered against the driver of the bus; that this respondent duly insured his bus with respondent No4; hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed to the extent of this respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent, being the owner of the jeep, filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to age, occupation, income of the petitioner and also the manner in which the accident took place. It is stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners under various heads is highly excessive; that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep; that this respondent insured his jeep with respondent No.4; hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed to the extent of this respondent. 7. The 4th respondent, being the Insurer of both the vehicles, filed counter and additional counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, occupation, income of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident took place. It is stated that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus hired to APSRTC and the crime was also registered against the driver, therefore, the question of negligence on the part of the driver of respondent No.3 does not arise; that the amount claimed by the petitioners under various heads is excessive; that the 2nd respondent also has not paid any separate premium and the accident was caused by the driver of the respondent No.2 under the employer of respondent No.1, while he was operating the bus hired by the 1st respondent; as such, the 1st respondent is alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and paying of compensation to petitioners and paying of compensation by Insurance Company does not arise and therefore, the petition to the extent of this respondent is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of M.V. Act? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 2. To what relief? 9. In support of their case, claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 are got marked. 10. Considering the evidence, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs.1,64,500/-towards compensation with proportionate costs. It appears no appeal is filed by the claimants. 11. On the other hand, the plea of the Insurance Company is that APSRTC is responsible for the accident. It is pleaded that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the Jeep in the accident and that the petitioners are not entitled for claim against respondents 3 and 4. 12. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the bus, which was insured with respondent No.4 and hired to respondent No.1. In other words, argument of the 1st respondent is that as per the terms and conditions of the Ex.B1 – Hire Agreement, only respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Whereas, the argument of the respondent No.2 is that since he hired the bus to respondent No.1, having insured with respondent No.4, either respondent No.1 or respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation. 13. From the arguments advanced it appears that the main dispute is as to who should pay compensation? Whether it is the respondent No.1 who took the private bus on hire or Whether the respondent No.4 with whom the bus was insured? 14. But, it is to be noted here that, at the time of the accident, the Driver of the bus was not in the control of the respondent No.1, but was in control of the respondent No.2. A perusal of Ex.B1 – Hire Agreement goes to show that respondent No.2 entered into agreement with respondent No.1 on certain terms and conditions. Under Clause 5(v) of the said agreement, the owner of the bus shall be responsible for all motor accident claims and that any issue that arises due to statutory violations would come under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the R.T.C. shall in no circumstance be made liable and responsible to pay. Under Clause 5(v) of the said agreement, the owner of the bus shall be responsible for all motor accident claims and that any issue that arises due to statutory violations would come under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the R.T.C. shall in no circumstance be made liable and responsible to pay. Therefore, the trial court has rightly directed respondents 2 and 4 to pay the compensation amount to petitioners jointly and severally. 15. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the Tribunal while passing the order. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without costs while confirming the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.468 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.