JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.644 of 2006 dated 03.06.2011. 2. The appellant is the APSRTC/hirer of the Bus bearing No.AP 04 T 9494 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the said crime bus respectively. 3. The appeal against the 1 st respondent/claimant was dismissed for default vide proceedings dated 17.03.2015. Thereby, the present appeal is contested against respondent Nos.2 and 3/owner and insurer of the crime bus only. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 5. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 25.02.2006 afternoon, while the claimant along with his friend Vibhakar Reddy proceeding on Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 C 9322, when they reached Parameswara School board, near Lohia Nagar, the crime bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant in opposite direction, resulted the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right left and other parts of the body. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the owner, insurer and hirer of the crime bus. 6. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle on which the claimant was proceeding as pillion rider, but not driver of the crime bus; that the crime bus was taken on hire by the 3 rd respondent/APSRTC, thereby, RTC alone liable to pay compensation; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 7. 7. The respondent No.3/APSRTC/hirer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver, who is responsible for the accident is not the servant of APSRTC; that the 1 st respondent/owner is the master of the driver; that the crime was taken from the 1 st respondent for hire only on the basis of contract; that as per the clause No.5(iv) the owner shall be held responsible for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of operations, like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M.V.Act and Rules, APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunals in respect of accidents; that insurer of the bus alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the claimant received injuries on 25.02.2006 at 12.30 p.m. at Parameswara High School Board on Kadapa – Pulivendla main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Hired bus bearing No.AP 04 T 9494? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? and 3. To what relief?” 9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, its Divisional Manager was examined and Ex.B.1 policy was marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3/APSRTC, its Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B.2 agreement was exhibited. 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,49,500/-, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.3/APSRTC/hirer only, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claim against respondent No.2/insurer is dismissed by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3444 11. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC/hirer. 12. The claim against respondent No.2/insurer is dismissed by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3444 11. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/APSRTC/hirer. 12. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC/hirer and Sri Gudi Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer. 13. Now, short point that arises for determination is “whether the appellant/APSRTC/hirer of the crime bus is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant, if not, the in Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against insurance company?” 14. POINT It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant, involvement of crime bus, rash and negligent driving of the crime bus, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.1 and the same was running on hired basis under the appellant/APSRTC in view of Ex.B.2 agreement between the owner and hirer. Furthermore, there is no dispute about the quantum of compensation entitled and awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. It is a fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, owner and insurer of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC/hirer is that when Ex.B.1 policy is in force the insurer is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant, but not hirer of the vehicle, in view of the agreement between the owner and hirer. 16. To fortify the said contention, the appellant/APSRTC relied upon the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.B.2 attested copy of agreement between RTC and owner of the crime bus. 17. On perusal of the entire order of the Tribunal, the testimony of R.W.2 was not discussed. Further, not even mentioned about Ex.B.2 agreement in the entire order of Tribunal as well Appendix of Evidence. Thereby, the Tribunal completely ignoring the testimony of R.W.2 as well Ex.B.2 agreement between the hirer and owner. By Simply relying upon the 1997 decision of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Kothari case ( referred to supra ) dismissed the claim against the insurer and made the appellant/APSRTC alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 18. Thereby, the Tribunal completely ignoring the testimony of R.W.2 as well Ex.B.2 agreement between the hirer and owner. By Simply relying upon the 1997 decision of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Kothari case ( referred to supra ) dismissed the claim against the insurer and made the appellant/APSRTC alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 18. But, on perusal of Ex.B.2 agreement, as per the condition No.5(iv), it is categorical that the owner shall liable for all claims that may arise due to statutory violation out of operations, like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M.V.Act 1988/Rules and APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents, as per condition No.5(ii) the owner shall keep his vehicle duly insured comprehensively and as per condition No.5(iii) it is mutually agreed that the corporation shall not be responsible for any damage or loss caused to the vehicle hired during the period of accidents etc. Thereby, the hirer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the insurer of the crime bus is only liable to pay the said compensation in view of Ex.B.1 policy. 19. Now it is relevant to make note a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajenderi Devi, [2020 LawSuit (SC) 429], wherein at paragraph No.30 and 31 held as follows: “30. 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 would be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy in existence to the Corporation and thus the Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 31. 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. 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.” 20. In view of the above settled legal position coupled with Ex.B.2 agreement and facts of the case, as discussed supra, it is clear in vivid terms that the APSRTC can be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. Thereby, the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal that the appellant/APSRTC is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the claim against the insurer is liable for dismissal, is not tenable under law, which requires interference. Thus, the point is answered accordingly and against the insurer of the crime bus. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. Consequently, the claim against the appellant/APSRTC is dismissed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2/owner and insurer are alone jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon. The amount, if any, already deposited by the appellant/APSRTC towards compensation before the Tribunal, which was received by the claimant, shall be refunded to the APSRTC without furnishing any security by adjusting the compensation amount to be deposited by the respondent No.2/insurer. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.