JUDGMENT: 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, APSRTC impugns the order dated 16.02.2010 of the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – III Additional District Court, Bhimavaram in MVOP.No.178 of 2007. 2. Respondent No.1 is the injured claimant. Respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending bus. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending bus. Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the offending bus. 3. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, the learned standing counsel for the appellant/ APSRTC and Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.4/Insurance Company and Sri A.Pavan Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant submitted their arguments. 4. On 02.01.2007, two persons were travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 37 S 9538. APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 37 W 1939 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and the bus dashed the motorcycle and as a consequence, the pillion rider on the bike suffered multiple fractures and he underwent surgeries. The injured was studying MBA and was also working as a sales representative in a company called Cosmos and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Seeking compensation for his injuries, he filed MVOP.No.178 of 2007 before learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum – III Additional District Court, Bhimavaram. The driver did not contest, and the owner filed a counter but thereafter did not contest. The insurance company and APSRTC put up their contest. Learned claims tribunal framed the following issues. 1. Whether the accident occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 37 W 1939 driven by its driver i.e., 1" respondent.? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so to for how much amount? 3. To what relief.? 5. On behalf of the claimant, PW.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. A copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. After considering the material on record and considering the submissions made on both sides, the claims tribunal found that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP 37 W 1939. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. A copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. After considering the material on record and considering the submissions made on both sides, the claims tribunal found that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP 37 W 1939. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, it granted Rs.1,02,575/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The operative portion of the order reads as below: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting a sum of Rs.102,575/- towards compensation together with interest at rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The 4th respondent is directed to deposit the same in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and later the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. It is further ordered that the 1st and 2nd and 4th respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for proportionate costs. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.” 6. One would notice from the above said order, the Insurance company/R3 before the claims tribunal was exonerated. At paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, the learned claims tribunal found that R2 owns bus bearing registration No. AP 37 W 1939 and it gave it on hire to APSRTC and therefore the liability to compensate lies on the shoulders of APSRTC and not on the Insurance company. 7. Impugning the said award, the present appeal was filed by APSRTC. Various grounds are urged in the appeal questioning the correctness of the amount of compensation that was arrived at. However, the only point that was argued on behalf of the appellant is that exoneration of insurance company and fastening liability on APSRTC by the claims tribunal is against law and therefore the appellant shall be discharged from liability. The learned counsel for insurance company argued that the impugned order of the claims tribunal is in accordance with facts and law and does not call for any interference. 8. The learned counsel for insurance company argued that the impugned order of the claims tribunal is in accordance with facts and law and does not call for any interference. 8. Therefore, the only question that has arisen in this appeal is" If an insured vehicle is plying under an agreement of contract with APSRTC on the route as permit granted in favour of the corporation, in case of accident, whether the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation or would it be the responsibility of the APSRTC to pay compensation?” 9. This question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in UPSRTC V. Kulsum, (2011) 8 SCC 142 and in UPSRTC V. Rajenderi Devi, (2020) 19 SCC 230 . In both these rulings, their Lordships held that once the vehicle is insured, owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, a separate insurance policy should be taken. If a bus was insured by its owner and thereafter such bus was given on hire to RTC and if that bus gets involved in an automobile accident causing injuries to third parties, in the eye of the law, it would be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy in existence to hirer and consequently the insurer of the policy along with the owner of the bus are liable to pay compensation. With reference to third party risks, the insurance company must pay compensation since in the issuance of policy, it had agreed to indemnify the injured on behalf of the owner of the bus. On behalf of the Insurance company no point of law contrary to the above is shown. 10. In the case at hand, there is in existence Ex.B1 insurance policy. It is undisputed that the policy was valid and was in force by the date of accident. By virtue of the law as laid down by their Lordships and as the facts indicate there was no violation of policy conditions. It is thus clear that the owner of the bus and the insurance company must bear the responsibility along with the tortfeasor/ driver. By virtue of the law as laid down by their Lordships and as the facts indicate there was no violation of policy conditions. It is thus clear that the owner of the bus and the insurance company must bear the responsibility along with the tortfeasor/ driver. APSRTC, which merely took the insured bus on hire has no liability under law to compensate the injuries sustained by a third party to the insurance policy. 11. In the above-referred circumstance, the view taken by the claims tribunal being against law, it cannot be sustained. Hence, point is answered in favour of the appellant. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, order dated 16.02.2010 in MVOP.No.178 of 2007 of learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Court, Bhimavaram fixing liability on the appellant herein/APSRTC is set aside. The liability to pay compensation amount shall be shouldered by the driver/respondent No.2, the owner of the bus/respondent No.3 and the insurer/ respondent No.4 herein, namely, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Before the claims tribunal, respondent No.4 herein/ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order along with proportionate costs with 7.5% interest per annum as ordered in the award by the claims tribunal. The claimant is entitled to apply to the claims tribunal and withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.