RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra in MACP No. 689 of 2012, dated 27th January, 2012 by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs.4,36,500/= to the claimants payable by the appellant. The appellant is an insurer of the offending Bus, bearing registration no. U.P. -86 -9544. In an accident, which took place on 14th August, 2010, between the aforesaid offending Bus and the Motorcycle, bearing registration No. U.P. -80 -BK -2557 being driven by the deceased, Padam Singh @ Pappu, who was going from Fatehabad to his village alongwith his known person, at Meerpura Turning on Agra -Bah road, in which the deceased, Padam Singh, suffered grievous injuries and while taking to the Hospital for treatment, on the way, he died. One Ajay Pal Singh was the owner of the Bus. The said vehicle had been given on hire to Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation (in short UPSRTC) under the agreement. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs on the ground that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus. The 22 years old deceased was carrying on of milk business, earning about Rs.8,000/= per month. The Tribunal, however, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, relating to the income of the deceased, has estimated the monthly income at Rs.3,000/= per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, having regard to the age and applying multiplier of 18, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, estimated the compensation at Rs.4,32,000/=. The Tribunal further awarded the compensation at Rs.4,500/= under other heads. The total compensation awarded was Rs.4,36,000/=.
(3.) IN the present case, there is no dispute about the accident and involvement of the offending Bus. The only submission pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was given by the owner of the vehicle to the UPSRTC, under the bipartite agreement, in which the appellant was not the party. The Bus was in the possession of the UPSRTC and, therefore, in view of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the UPSRTC was the owner of the vehicle and as such was liable to pay the compensation. Since there was no agreement between the appellant and the UPSRTC and in the bipartite agreement, the Insurance Company was not the party, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the liability of the UPSRTC.;