JUDGMENT: V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J. This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) assailing the award dated 31.05.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1350 of 2009.2. Heard arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. Despite service of notice on respondents, none entered appearance. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP 37 Y 9277 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 16 N 9097 were involved in an automobile accident occurred on 09.06.2009 at about 8:00 P.M. on National Highway-5 road near Nallagate Center. In the said accident Sri Goli Ravindra @ Ravi suffered injuries and survived while his brother-in-law succumbed to injuries and died. Sri Goli Ravindra @ Ravi filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-. The bus was originally owned by Sri S.Srinivas. He was shown as respondent No.1. It was insured by him with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company. It was shown as respondent No.2. The bus was given on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. which was shown as respondent No.3. The original owner of the bus did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its pleadings denying any liability stating that the bus was hired to A.P.S.R.T.C. and that the accident was never informed to it. A.P.S.R.T.C./respondent No.3 therein filed its counter stating that the bus was validly insured and therefore the insurer alone has to pay. It further pleaded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of bus by its driver. 4. The following issues were settled by the Claims Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Hire Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 9277? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 5. For claimant, there was oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A.1 to A.14 and Ex.X.1. For respondents, there was oral evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 as well as B.2 are the same insurance policies. 3. To what relief? 5. For claimant, there was oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A.1 to A.14 and Ex.X.1. For respondents, there was oral evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 as well as B.2 are the same insurance policies. Ex.B.3 is an agreement dated 25.05.2009 under which the owner of the bus gave the bus on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. 6. At the material point of time the contract of hire was subsisting and the policy of insurance was subsisting. It was not a case of breach of any conditions of insurance policy. Though the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the claimant was not obliged to plead and prove the fault and the Claims Tribunal was not obliged to inquire as to whether the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of one or the other vehicle, the learned Chairman thought it fit to deal with the aspect of “fault” extensively and finally held that the motorcyclist was not at fault and the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and caused the accident and the resultant injuries to the claimant. It considered the evidence of doctor/PW.2, Ex.A.4-wound certificate, Ex.A.6- discharge summary, Ex.A.7-outpatient card, Ex.A.8-ultra sound scan report, Ex.A.9-CT scan, Ex.A.10-medical bills, Ex.A.11- prescriptions, A.12-X-ray films and Ex.A.14-scan films and held that the claimant underwent treatment at the hospital and there was a fracture for him and there were necessary surgical interventions. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads: Towards actual medical expenses Rs. 32,890/- Towards loss of amenities because of the disability he suffered Rs. 70,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Total: Rs.1,22,890/- Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,22,890/- was granted. It deliberated on the issue of the liability of the insurance company, liability of the owner of the bus and that of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and held that injured claimant was a third party and then allowed the claim as against all the respondents therein and passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition has been allowed partly, with proportionate costs, awarding a sum of Rs.1,22,890/- towards compensation to the petitioner together with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this petition till the date of deposit. All the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order and on making such deposit the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Rest of the claim has been dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/-.” 7. A.P.S.R.T.C. questioned the legality of the said award. 8. Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. argued with vehemence that the award of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability on A.P.S.R.T.C. is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and therefore the award shall be modified and the A.P.S.R.T.C. shall be exonerated from the liability. In the present appeal the claimant is shown as respondent No.1. The owner of the bus is shown as respondent No.2. The insurance company is shown as respondent No.3. Despite service of notice on all of them none entered appearance. 9. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award is erroneous in fastening liability on appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C. ?” POINT: 10. From the material on record it is crystal clear that Sri S.Srinivas owns the offending bus bearing registration No. AP 37 Y 9277. He got it insured which is evidenced by Ex.B.2- insurance policy. While the policy was subsisting, he gave this bus on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. which is evidenced by Ex.B.3- agreement. At the material point of time the bus was under the control of A.P.S.R.T.C. At the material point of time the insurance policy was in force. In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Kulsum , [ (2011) 8 SCC 142 ] and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajenderi Devi , [ (2020) 19 SCC 230 ] , their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the relative liabilities of Road Transport Corporation which obtained a bus on hire for which bus there was subsisting valid insurance policy. It was held that the insurance policy that was obtained by the original owner subsists and even after the bus was given on hire to Road Transport Corporation it would be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy and therefore, the insurer is always liable to pay compensation to the injuries sustained by third parties. It was held that the insurance policy that was obtained by the original owner subsists and even after the bus was given on hire to Road Transport Corporation it would be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy and therefore, the insurer is always liable to pay compensation to the injuries sustained by third parties. A perusal of the impugned award indicates a dismal reading as the learned Chairman failed to advert to either the statute or to the precedent and simply held that everyone who was sued was held responsible to pay the compensation. Such attitude of the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. There is merit in the contention of the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C. Simply because it took the bus on hire it need not be fastened with liability. It is only the owner and the insurer who are liable to pay the compensation. The point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the award dated 31.05.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1350 of 2009 fixing liability on all the respondents is modified. The liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,22,890/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization shall be shouldered by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Before the Claims Tribunal the third respondent herein-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment along with proportionate costs with 7.5% interest per annum as ordered in the award by the Claims Tribunal, after giving due credit to amount paid if any. On such deposit, respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.