APHC010630262011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1295/2011 Between: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Pandetiobulesu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 2. 3. The Court made the following: 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.1295 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 23.05.2011 in W.C.No.16 of 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. The Insurance Company/O.P.No.2 is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- One Pandeti Obulesu (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”) was working as a Tractor coolie under O.P.No.1 in Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-04-V-1647 and 1648, which was insured with O.P.No.2 vide Cover Note No.100001976496 valid from 18.04.2006 to 17.04.2007. The Claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.07.2006 near RTC Bus-Stand, Kadapa, as the Tractor driver drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the Claimant received vital injuries. After the accident the Claimant was shifted to Govt. RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. Though the Claimant survived in the accident, the injury suffered resulted in malunion on his right leg and there is a shortening of his leg. As a result, he was unable to walk freely. 4. A case was registered in Cr.No.150 of 2006 punishable under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC, Section 134(a) and (b) R/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Chinnachowk Police Station. As the Claimant was aged 21 years and earning Rs.150/- per day at the time of the accident and as accident occurred in the course of employment, the claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3 5. Opposite Party No.1/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity? 2. What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3. What was the wage paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4. What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant? 5. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant? 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 7. In the course of evidence, the Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 apart from examining Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah, Orthopaedic Doctor, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 in support of his claim. On behalf of the Respondents, O.P.No.2 was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 i.e. Farmers Package Policy. 4 8. The Commissioner, taking into the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation by taking the age of the Claimant and the minimum wage to loading and unloading coolies as per G.O.Ms.81, L.E.F.T (Lab.II) dated 02.12.2006 vide Gazette No.129, dated 29.03.2001 of employment in Private Motor Transport for loading and unloading coolie/cleaner has been computed minimum rates of wages Rs.2,930/- per month on the date of accident and awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,190/-. Questioning the said order, the present C.M.A is filed. 9. As notice to Respondent No.1/Claimant was not served, this Court on 12.07.2016 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for petitioner(s)/appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.1 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within four weeks. Failing which, petitioner/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent No.1”. 10. As the above peremptory order was not complied with by the Appellant/Insurance Company/O.P.No.2 as per the endorsement by the Registry, consequently the C.M.A stood dismissed against the Respondent No.1 i.e. the Claimant. No application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. 11. As the appeal stood dismissed against the Claimant/Respondent No.1, no order in favour of the Appellant/Insurance Company/O.P.No.2 can be passed in the C.M.A and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 12. As there is long time delay from the date of accident and considering the uncertain address of the Claimant, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant 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: 18.02.2025 IS 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.1295 of 2011 Date: 18.02.2025 IS