JUDGMENT : These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same accident and the parties to the proceedings are one and the same. 1. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021 and for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006, Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006, and Mr. Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel, representing Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd appellant-APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006 and for the respondent-APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021 was preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, while M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006 was preferred by the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 29.08.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.502 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petition. 4. The original petition was filed by the petitioner-claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2001. The petitioner is working as Sub-Engineer in A.P. Transco, North Division, Proddutur and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7446.75 ps. i) On 14.05.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. the petitioner proceeded to office on his scooter bearing No.AP 04 9617 and as there was a red light signal at T.B. Circle near Vijaya Kumar Theatre, Proddutur, he stopped his scooter at the Circle. After the green signal being switched on, the petitioner started and turned his scooter towards Eastern side of the T.B. Road. In the meantime, a bus bearing No.AP 04U 2016 being driven by its driver came from Gandhi Road in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the leg of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries to his left leg. ii) Immediately after the accident, on the advice of the doctor, the petitioner was admitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where he took treatment and spent a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Subsequently, he joined Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and undergone operation by spending Rs.50,000/-apart from spending an amount of Rs.30,000/-towards medical check-ups. ii) Immediately after the accident, on the advice of the doctor, the petitioner was admitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where he took treatment and spent a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Subsequently, he joined Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and undergone operation by spending Rs.50,000/-apart from spending an amount of Rs.30,000/-towards medical check-ups. In spite of taking treatment, the petitioner is not in a position to walk without assistance and attend his personal work. iii) As the 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer and the 3rd respondent is the hirer of the bus, a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-was claimed against all the respondents, jointly and severally. 5. The 1st respondent-owner remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and contending that the offending vehicle was given on hire by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent-APSRTC and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent and further that the amount claimed is excessive. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the original petition. 7. The 3rd respondent-APSRTC also filed a written statement. It is inter alia contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and the offending vehicle was hired with APSRTC and the 1st respondent-owner of the bus had entered into an agreement with APSRTC. It is also contended that as per Clause 5(iv) of the agreement, the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of operations like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of the M.V. Act and that APSRTC shall not be made liable for payment of compensation that may be awarded. It is contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the owner and the insurer of the scooter bearing No.AP 04A 9617 as also that the petition is not maintainable against APSRTC. On the said grounds, it is urged that the original petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2001 at 8.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.AP 04U 2016? 8. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2001 at 8.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.AP 04U 2016? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.34. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.2 was examined and Ex.B.2 was marked. 10. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver, and accordingly, allowed the original petition in part against the respondents granting a compensation of Rs.1,88,400/-to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, by award dated 29.08.2005. It is directed that from out of the compensation amount, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021, while the 3rd respondent-APSRTC preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006. 11. On hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is noted that there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident and the quantum awarded towards compensation. 12. The only issue is whether the Claims Tribunal is right in fastening the liability against the appellants in the present appeals i.e., United Insurance Company Limited and APSRTC as indicated in the award under challenge, if not, who has to pay the compensation awarded. 13. The issue with regard to liability in respect of accidents where the buses hired by Transport Corporation on lease are involved, is no longer res integra. Third party claims arising out of accidents involving hired buses by APSRTC were succinctly dealt with by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. B. Kanakaratnabhai, reported in 2013 (1) ALD 644 (F.B). Third party claims arising out of accidents involving hired buses by APSRTC were succinctly dealt with by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. B. Kanakaratnabhai, reported in 2013 (1) ALD 644 (F.B). Placing reliance on the said judgment, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation and therefore, the award and decree, insofar as the Corporation is concerned, is liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Full Bench, while answering the reference as to whether compensation payable in respect of claims arising out of accidents involving insured buses hired by the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) should be borne by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company, the APSRTC or by some or all of them, referred to a catena of judgments and inter alia held that “mere hiring of insured buses by the owners to the APSRTC would not in any manner limit the liability and accountability of the Insurance Companies, be it under the Act of 1988 or the Act of 1939, to honour passengers/Third party risks covered by the insurance policies issued by them in favour of the owners. Notwithstanding the hiring of insured buses by the owners to the APSRTC, the Insurance Companies shall be solely and exclusively liable for payment of compensation arising out of such passengers/Third party claims, unless any of the grounds in Section 149 (2) of the Act of 1988/Section 96 (2) of the Act of 1939 are made out.” 14. In the light of the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench, the submission of the learned counsel for APSRTC is upheld. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2021 is dismissed. The appeal filed by APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.339 of 2006 is allowed by setting aside the award and decree to the extent of fastening of 50% compensation awarded. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench referred to supra, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation and the same shall be deposited together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs in these two appeals. 16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand disposed of.