APHC010638382011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 110/2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ...APPELLANT AND Patan Rasool Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V RAVI BABU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 110/2011 JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 09.03.2005 in W.C.No.82 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- The claimant/Patan Rasool filed the claim application stating that he was working as a cleaner under Opposite Party No.1 in the lorry bearing No.A.P 04 U 5589. On 04.07.2003 on the instructions of Opposite Party No.1, himself and Shaik Fazulu as driver both took the lorry from VSN Poultry Form of Palameneru on the night and while proceeding to Nandhyal via Rayachoty, Cuddapah, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle when the vehicle was reached Guvvalacheruvu Ghat Section on Cuddapah Rayachoty main road at 06.00 am and as a result, the lorry turned turtle. Due to the accident, he received fracture injuries on his left 3 hand shoulder and it was dislocated. A case in Cr.No.59 of 2003 was registered by the C.K. Dinne P.S., Cuddapah District, against the driver of the vehicle. Due to the injuries, the claimant spent Rs.15,000/- for his medical expenses and became permanently disabled person. As the Claimant was aged 33 years and earning Rs.4,100/- per month as salary at the time of the accident, a claim application was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. Opposite Party No.1/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Opposite Party No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim of the claimant, the manner in which the accident took place, injuries sustained by the applicant, the relationship of the applicant and Opposite Party No.1, disability percentage and the liability to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an 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? 4 3. What was the wages 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 ? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation? 5. On behalf of the claimant, AWs. 1 and 2 were examined and EXs. A.1 to 9 were marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 6. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,829/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 7. Heard Smt A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri V. Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. As the notice to Respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle was not served in the Appeal, this Court on 13.07.2016 passed the following order:- 5 “Learned counsel for appellant/s is/are permitted to take out fresh personal notice to the Respondent No.2 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within four weeks. Failing which, the Petition/Appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against Respondent No.2. 9. As the order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 stood dismissed as per the endorsement made by the Registry. Thereafter, no application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. 10. As the appeal against the owner/ O.P.No.1/ Respondent No.2 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, the impugned order of the Commissioner making owner/O.P.No.1 “jointly and severally” liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-à-vis the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.2. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.No.1-owner/Respondent No.2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. Hence, present appeal cannot be entertained any further as no 6 favourable order can be 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. 12. 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 claimant/s directly into his/her/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: 20-02-2025 eha 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA No. 110 of 2011 Dt.20-02-2025 U eha