The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28750 of 2014 Dated 18.10.2014 Between:
A. Mahender Reddy And The APSRTC Rep. by its Managing Director and 2 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.DV.Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the respondents: Mr.N.Vasudeva Reddy, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceeding No.SP/785/OP(3)/2013-SDNR, dated 21-08-2014, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.5,48,087/- @ Rs.25,000/- per fortnight from the bills payable to the petitioner from the month of August, 2014. I have heard Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) representing the respondents.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that one
B. Satyanarayana was the original owner of the bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Y 1102; that he has given the said bus on hire to the respondent- Corporation during the year 2007; that on 19-08-2008, an accident involving the said bus has taken place resulting in the death of a person; that the family members of the deceased filed OP.No.570 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’); that the Tribunal vide award, dated 21-07- 2014, awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of award; and that following the said award, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceeding.
Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the accident has taken place when B.Satyanarayana was the owner of the hired bus; that later, he has sold the bus to one V.Yadaiah, from whom the petitioner has purchased it. He has further submitted that at the time of transfer of ownership of the bus by B.Satyanarayana in favour of V.Yadaiah, the said B.Satyanarayana has executed an indemnity bond, under which he has agreed to indemnify the respondent - Corporation for any loss sustained by it due to all claims that may arise due to statutory violations or accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the copy of the indemnity bond, stated to have been executed by B.Satyanarayana, which is annexed to the Writ Petition.
As the petitioner has not impleaded B.Satyanarayana as a party to this Writ Petition, I refrain from rendering any finding as to whether the said person has executed such indemnity bond. However, it needs to be observed that if the original owner i.e., B.Satyanarayana has executed the indemnity bond, as pleaded by the petitioner, the Corporation cannot proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Mr.N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, has submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will reconsider the issue and withdraw the claim against the petitioner, if B.Satyanarayana has executed indemnity bond in favour of the Corporation.
In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue relating to the liability of the petitioner for payment of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal vide award, dated 21-07-2012, in OP.No.570 of 2009 and take appropriate decision in the light of the findings rendered above. Till such decision is taken, proceeding No.SP/785/OP(3)/2013-SDNR, dated 21-08-2014, issued by respondent No.3, shall not be enforced.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.35988 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th October, 2014
LUR