APHC010001562013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 838/2013 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Jyothi Venkatamma And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.838 of 2013 JUDGMENT:- The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 29.05.2009 in W.C.No.110 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- The claimant/mother-in-law of the deceased/Jyothi Penchalamma filed the claim application stating that the deceased was working as a Coolie under Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. On 22.01.2003 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased and some other Coolies boarded the Lorry bearing No.MP 04-K-2661 of Opposite Party No.2 for loading and packing the Papayya fruits at Kodur area. After loading the fruits, they are returning to their village in the lorry. While so, at about 6.30 p.m., the lorry met with an accident near Vontimitta Tank bund, due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. In the process, the vehicle turned turtle and as a result, the deceased and others died on the spot. A case in 3 Cr.No.3 of 2003 was registered by Vontimitta P.S. As the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.150/- per day, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Opposite Party No.3/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment 2. What is the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? 5. In the course of evidence, the claimant herself was examined as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 i.e. Certified 4 copy of F.I.R, C.C. of Inquest report of the deceased, certified copy of Post Mortem certificate of the deceased and Office copy of legal notice, in support of her claim. On behalf of the Respondents, Ex.B.1 true copy of policy and Ex.B.2 R.C. of lorry were marked and R.W.1 Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.3 was examined. 6. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded an amount of Rs.2,38,905/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 8. Heard Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. As the notice to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. owner of the vehicle was not served in the Appeal, this Court on 19.12.2011 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for appellant/s is/are permitted to take out fresh personal notice to respondent Nos.2 & 3/concerned to the correct address by registered post with acknowledgment due or by courier service and file proof of service within six (6) weeks, failing which, the appeal stands dismissed as against whom the notice is to be served and also for non-prosecution. 5 Further, if any of the respondents or the parties died, the appellant/s is/are directed to bring the legal representatives on record, within six (6) weeks, failing which, the appeal stands abated and liable for dismissal for non-prosecution. If any parties are necessary parties and notice is not necessary, a memo be filed to that effect for recording the same.” 9. As the order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/O.P.Nos.1 and 2/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood dismissed as per the endorsement made by the Registry. No application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. 10. As the appeal against the owner/O.P.Nos.1 and 2/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood dismissed for non- compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the impugned order of the Commissioner making O.P.Nos.1 to 3 “jointly and severally” liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-à-vis the owner/O.P.Nos.1 and 2/Respondent Nos.2 and 3. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.Nos.1 and 2-owner/Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. Hence, present appeal cannot be entertained any further as no favourable order can be 6 passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders. 11. Therefore, the present Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As there is long delay of 22 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked bank account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.02.2025 KLP