1 APHC010564282013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60/2013 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupathi. ...APPELLANT AND Gagguturi Khader Hussain And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. R RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA No. 60 of 2013 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, questioning the Compensation Award Dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Tirupati in W.C.No.10 of 2007 in favour of the Respondent No.1. 2. The facts leading to filing the Claim Petition are as follows: (i) The Respondent No.1 herein is the Claimant and was working as a permanent driver under the lorry bearing No. AP 16 V 1100 of the Respondent No.2. During the course of employment and while driving the vehicle on 29.10.2006, the lorry met with an accident while taking a load of empty cylinders from Tirupati to Kadapa. In the said accident, the claimant/Respondent No.1 suffered grevious injuries. In view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, an application was filed seeking for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. (ii) In the course of the evidence, on behalf of the Claimant, Exs. A.1 to A.7 were marked, and he was examined as AW.1. Apart from that, Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah was examined as AW.2, and he spoke about the disability 3 suffered by the Claimant. Though the disability was assessed @ 40%, but from the functional point of view, the disability was assessed at 100% and the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,42,432/- with interest at 12% from the date of petition till realization of the amount. iii) Questioning the same, the present Appeal was filed. 3. As Notice to Respondent No.2 i.e., the owner of the Vehicle was not served, this Court on 22.09.2011 passed the following Order: “The counsel for the appellant/s is/are permitted to take out fresh batta to the respondent No.2 and personal notice to the concerned respondents to correct address by registered post with acknowledgment due, or by courier service, and file proof of service within four(4) weeks, failing which the appeal stands dismissed as against whom the notice is to be served and also for non-prosecution. Further, if any of the respondents or the parties died, the appellant/s is/are directed to bring the legal representatives on record, within four(4) 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”. 4. As per the endorsement of the Registry, the above extracted order was not complied with by the Appellant/Insurance Company and consequently, the said Order was implemented and the Appeal was dismissed against the Respondent No.2/ owner of the Vehicle. Thereafter no application is filed to recall or set aside the Order. 4 5. Though the Appellant/Insurance Company sought to contest the Appeal on merits, this Court is of the opinion that as the liability of the Insurance Company being co-extensive with the liability of the owner and once the appeal stood dismissed against the owner and the compensation awarded by the Commissioner and the finding regarding joint and several liability had attained the finality as against the Respondent No.2, the appeal cannot be heard on merits vis a vis the liability of Insurance Company. In that view, the Appeal cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 7. As there is a substantial time gap from the date of incident till date, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned and intimate the claimant(s) about the outcome of the Appeal and ensure that the compensation would be deposited in the Aadhar linked bank accounts of the Claimant(s). __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 28.01.2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA No. 60 of 2013 Date: 28.01.2025 eha U