Telangana High Court
WP/12653/2007 of V.Ramachandra Naidu Vs AP State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its on 30 December 2013
A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.1446, 19912 of 2006 and 12653 of 2007 Date: 30.12.2013 WP No.1446 of 2006: Between: G. Chandrasekhar Naidu … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice-Chairman cum Managing Director, Hyderabad & others … Respondents HON’BLE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.1446, 19912 of 2006 and 12653 of 2007
Date: 30.12.2013
WP No.1446 of 2006:
Between:
G. Chandrasekhar Naidu
… Petitioner
And
The APSRTC, rep. by its
Vice-Chairman cum Managing Director, Hyderabad& others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.1446, 19912 of 2006 and 12653 of 2007COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners in these three cases are owners of the hiredvehicles by the APSRTC. When the APSRTC deducted certainamounts from the hire charges payable to them/directed to deposit theamount towards compensation amount payable under the MotorVehicles Act, on the ground of satisfying the awards passed by theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunals, these writ petitions were filed.
2. A Full Bench of this Court in ‘APSRTC vs. B.Kanakarathana Bai[[1]]’, considered the issue as to the liability of owners to pay theamount of compensation in the case of the hired vehicles to theAPSRTC. The Full Bench held that mere hiring of insured buses by the owners to the APSRTC would not in any manner limit the liabilityand accountability of the insurance companies, be it under the Act1988 or Act of 1939 to honour passengers/third party claims, the riskcovered by the insurance policies issued by them in favour of owners.Notwithstanding hiring of the insured buses by the owners to theAPSRTC, the insurance companies shall be solely and exclusivelyare liable for payment of the compensation arising out of suchpassengers/third party claims, unless any of the grounds in Section149(2) of the Act 1988/Section 96(2) of the Act 1939 are made out.
3. In view of this decision, the insurance companies are liable topay the compensation for the insured vehicles given on hire to theAPSRTC and the APSRTC cannot deduct any amount towardsliability under the Motor Vehicles Act from the hired charges payable tothe petitioners.
4. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and therespondents are directed to release the amounts payable to thepetitioners towards hire charges due to them. Wherever therespondents have not deducted and directed the petitioners to depositthe amount towards liability for compensation under the MotorVehicles Act, the orders are set aside. Pending miscellaneouspetitions, if any, in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, JDate: 30.12.2013BSS
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO2
WRIT PETITION Nos.1446, 19912 of 2006 and 12653 of 2007
Date: 30.12.2013
BSS
[1]2013(1) ALT 727