JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC/appellant/respondent No.3 and Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/APSRTC challenging the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.402 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to “Tribunal”). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant/respondent No.1 filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.05.2006 at about 4.15 PM near Rangapur village on NH-7 road. 5. The case of the claimant is that he was travelling in APSRTC hire bus bearing registration No.AP22 U 1891 on 18.05.2006; at about 4.15 PM the bus reached a place near K.M. mile stone No.161/2 within the limits of Rangapur village on NH-7 road; the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; as a result, the bus dashed against the opposite coming lorry bearing registration No.AP21 X 3491; as a result, the passengers in the bus sustained injuries; the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kurnool; hence, he filed the claim petition. 6. The owner of the bus remained ex parte. The Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the accident was occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus; the 1st respondent is the owner of the bus; he hired the same to APSRTC; therefore, liability to pay the compensation would remain as per the terms and conditions of the policy; the owner of the bus did not pay additional premium to cover the risk of the hirer and therefore, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The respondent No.3/APSRTC is liable to pay the compensation. 7. The respondent No.3/APSRTC is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Respondent No.3/APSRTC filed counter contending that accident was occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, it was occurred due to negligent driving of the lorry; the owner and insurance company of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation; there is a hire agreement between the owner of the bus and APSRTC; if any claim arises on account of any accident, the insurer of the bus is liable to pay the compensation. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and four (04) documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was placed before the Tribunal except marking Copy of policy and copy of hire agreement as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. 10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.37,000/- towards just compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident; the learned Tribunal passed the decree fastening the liability against the owner of the bus and APSRTC and exonerated the insurer of the bus i.e., respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/APSRTC would contend that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured i.e., owner of the bus and fastening liability on the respondent No.3/APSRTC by the Tribunal is not valid in law and liable to be set-aside and that interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is exorbitant and excessive. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company fairly conceded that the Tribunal did not consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.402 of 2008 dated 03.03.2012 warrants interference of this Court? 2. 13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.402 of 2008 dated 03.03.2012 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 14. The contention of the respondent No.3/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that APSRTC is liable to pay the compensation instead of insurer of the bus in spite of Ex.B2/hire agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/APSRTC would submit that in view of the Judgment of this Court in APSRTC, Hyderabad and another Vs. B.Kanakaratnabai and other respondents, 2013 (1) ALD 644, the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajenderi Devi and others, 2020 LawSuit (SC) 429, the liability to pay the compensation is based on a statutory provision and compulsory insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third parties and the liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to third party and not to the property and once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner and there is no requirement to take separate policy; In that view of the matter, as the offending vehicle in the case was insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company and it was in force at the time of accident and the claimant is a third-party, the insurer i.e., respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured i.e., owner of the bus; Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal fastening the liability on the respondent No.3/APSRTC is liable to be set-aside by fastening liability on the insured and respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 15. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2/Insurance Company would fairly submit that the Tribunal did not consider the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in B.Kanakaratnabai case and also in view of the subsequent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajenderi Devi case, the finding of the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajenderi Devi case elaborately discussed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajenderi Devi case elaborately discussed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and others, 2011 ACJ 2145 and held at para No.31 as under: “The liability to pay compensation is based on a statutory provision. Compulsory insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Act does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, a separate insurance policy should be taken. The purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act has been enacted with an object to advance social justice.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the insurer cannot escape from its liability once the vehicle is insured and there is no violation of conditions of policy and followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulsum case. 18. In the case on hand, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and the said policy was in force at the material point in time. There is no material or evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, instead of the respondent No.3/APSRTC, who hired the bus from the insured. 19. Learned counsel appellant would submit that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is excessive and usurious. 20. Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 18.05.2006. Considering the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant point in time and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) this Court is of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal be scale down to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum. 21. 21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be “partly allowed”, modifying the Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.402 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 22. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1522 of 2012 is liable to be “Partly Allowed”. 23. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is “Partly Allowed” modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.402 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, with respect to fastening liability on the appellant/APSRTC and respondent No.2/owner of the hired bus, instead of fastening the liability on respondent No.3/Insurance Company, and the rate of interest fixed by the learned Tribunal on the compensation amount at 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 24. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment. 25. On such deposit, the respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.