APHC010530712012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1148/2012 Between: Smt. Nallaturu Subbamma, ...APPELLANT AND Smt Nellaturu Sujathamma 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KOONA REDDY ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S NIRANJAN BABUJI 2. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.NO.1148 of 2012 JUDGMENT: The present Appeal is filed against the Order dated 22.07.2011 in W.C.No.1 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudur. 2. The O.P.No.3-Mother of the deceased is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The claimants are the wife and minor children of the deceased Nellaturu Ramanaiah, who was working as Driver under opposite party No.1. On 13.07.2007, the deceased while proceeding to Nellore market with vegetable bags load and when the vehicle reached K.R.Palem, Manubolu Mandal, a lorry without any proper indication came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided against the vehicle, as a result, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to death. A case in Crime No.76 of 2007 under Section 304 (A) IPC was registered by the Manubolu P.S. As the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- including salary of Rs.3,000/- and batta of Rs.1,000/- and was aged about 30 years at the time of accident the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.Since the vehicle was 3 insured with Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.1515587, the insurance company was arrayed as an opposite party. 4. The O.P.No.1 i.e. employer filed counter admitting the employment of the deceased as Driver and the accident. The O.P.No.2 i.e. insurance company filed its counter denying the accident, employment, age, wages and every plea of the claim. 5. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the workman died due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment? 2) If so, for what compensation the applicants are entitled to and who is liable to pay? 6. In the course of evidence, the Claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of Respondents, Ex.B.1 insurance certificate in original was marked. 7. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- making the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and opposite parties 3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the present Appeal by the opposite party No.2/Appellant. 4 8. As the notice to Respondent No.2 i.e. employe/owner of the vehicle regarding this appeal was not served, this Court on 21.07.2016 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for appellant/s is permitted to take out personal notice as against respondent No.2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof of service within four (04) weeks. Failing which, petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent No.2.” 9. As the above quoted order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/O.P.1/Respondent No.2 herein 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.No.1 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the order of the Commissioner making employer/O.P.No.1 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with appellant had attained finality vis-à-vis the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2. Once the “joint and several liability” of appellant stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against Respondent No.2/owner, the present appeal cannot be entertained any further as no favourable order can be passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders. 5 11. Therefore, the Appeal having been dismissed against the Respondent No.2/O.P.No.1, the Appeal is dismissed against the claimant also. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.02.2025 KLP