Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: disown in Manepalli Ammalu Anr vs Kada Hareesh Kumar 3 Ors on 20 June, 2025Matching Fragments
3) When outsourcing employees are sponsored by an agency and when such an outsourced functionary drives a vehicle? Whether the owner of the offending vehicle like A.P.S.R.T.C, an organization, who has engaged the services of an outsourcing agency can disown the liability?
4) Whether the petition is bad and liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the agency-M/s.K.L.Facility Management Services, which provided the outsourcing functionaries for maintenance etc. of the vehicles of the A.P.S.R.T.C. viz. the Respondents?
40. For all above reasons, the organization like APSRTC cannot disown its liability and point No.3 is answered accordingly concluding that even if an outsourced functionary drives the vehicle with a knowledge and permission of the owner of the offending vehicle who engaged the services of outsourcing agency, the owner and all other persons connected there with are responsible for any tortious act of such outsourcing employee and the owner including an organization like A.P.S.R.T.C. cannot disown its liability. Point No.4:
42. Liability to a claimant cannot be disowned on the ground of private contract between the owner of the vehicle and a third-party agency. The claimants have no privity of contract with the third party agency viz. M/s. K.L. Facility Management Services with whom the A.P.S.R.T.C is having a contract to provide outsourcing functionaries for attending some work in A.P.S.R.T.C. depot, that contract may have a clause to make good the loss suffered by A.P.S.R.T.C. for the deeds of such outsourcing personnel sponsored. Such contract is an independent contract. Such third party is accountable to only A.P.S.R.T.C, but not to the claimants directly. The liability, if any of the third party agency is towards A.P.S.R.T.C. alone. Therefore, lapse on the part of the claimants to include or implead the outsourcing agency viz. M/s. K.L. Facility Management Services cannot be found as a defect; dismiss the claim.
55. For the aforesaid reasons, point No.5 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that they are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,39,000/-.31
Point No.6:
56. For the reasons stated and conclusions drawn under Point Nos.1 to 5 and in the result it is found that all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally and Point No.6 is answered accordingly.
Summary of findings:
Point Point Held in favour of
No.
1. Whether the pleaded The point touching the negligence is
accident dated 03.12.2013
answered in favor of the claimants and
has occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the against the Respondents.
offending vehicle by
Respondent No.1?
2. Whether the accident place The deceased was an ex-employee of
viz. the RTC depot premises
the A.P.S.R.T.C and who went to the
and garage, is not a public
place and whether on the depot for enquiring about his
ground of deceased
retirement benefits etc. His presence
presence is not proper at the
time of the accident and no at the accident spot within the RTC
liability can be imposed on
premises cannot be considered as
the APSRTC?
unauthorized and the garage or the
depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. cannot be
considered as privileged place as
against its serving on retired
employees visiting for some
administrative and reasonable
purposes.
3. When outsourcing Even if an outsourced functionary
employees are sponsored
drive the vehicle with a knowledge and
by an agency and when
such an outsourced permission of the owner of the
functionary drives a vehicle?
offending vehicle who engaged the
Whether the owner of the
offending vehicle like services of outsourcing agency, the
APSRTC, an organization,
owner and all other persons
who has engaged the
services of an outsourcing connected there with are responsible
agency can disown the
for any tortious act for such
liability?
outsourcing employee and the owner
including an organization like
A.P.S.R.T.C. cannot disown its
liability.
4. Whether the petition is bad There is no necessity of presence of
and liable to be dismissed
M/s. K.L. Facility Management
for non-joinder of the
agency, M/s.K.L. Facility Services to the accident claim
Management Services,
proceedings and the defense of
which provided the
outsourcing functionaries for A.P.S.R.T.C is not tenable. Point is
maintenance etc. of the
answered against the A.P.S.R.T.C
vehicles of the A.P.S.R.T.C.
viz. the Respondents? and in favour of the claimants.