The facts giving rise to Civil Appeal No.5293 of 2010 reflect that the accident in question was caused by the bus which was driven under the companytrol of KSRTC.
The High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and held that the liability to make the payment of companypensation is that of KSRTC alone.
The MACT, Tumkur, Karnataka on 25.6.2007 allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.4,09,000/ with interest 6 p.a.
It was submitted by Shri S.N. Bhat, learned companynsel for the appellant that the High Court has erred in fastening the liability upon the KSRTC.
Aggrieved thereby, the KSRTC has companye up in the appeal before us.
Aggrieved thereby, the appeal was preferred in the High Court and the same has been dismissed.
As per clause 8, Drivers were to be engaged and provided by the owner.
The bus was owned by respondent number2, T.M. Ganeshan, insured by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Admittedly, an agreement dated 28.2.2002 was entered into between the KSRTC and owner respondent number2.
In Civil Appeal No.6641 of 2010, the bus was plied similarly on hire agreement by the KSRTC.
The same has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.2009.
The Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability jointly and severally upon the KSRTC and upon Internal Security Fund, Bangalore.
In view of the agreement between KSRTC and the owner of the bus, the liability was fastened upon the owner and the insurer of the vehicle jointly and severally to make the payment of companypensation, number on KSRTC.
Hence, Civil Appeal No.6641 of 2010 has been filed in this Court.
ARUN MISHRA, J. The questions involved in the appeals are whether in the wake of lease agreement entered into by registered owner with Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the KSRTC , the registered owner and insurer along with KSRTC can be fastened with the liability to make payment to the claimants and whether KSRTC can recover the amount from registered owner and its entitlement to seek indemnification from insurer?
Aggrieved thereby, the insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka.
