IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1014 OF 2013 Appeal under section 30 of WC Act against the Order/Decree in WC of 157 of 2005 dated 16/04/2008 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner Workmens Compensation & Asst Commissioner of Labour,Kadapa. Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, 22-269/1, Sundaracharlu Street, Proddatur. ...APPELLANT/OPP PARTY AND Guvvala Gangaiah And Another, S/o. Pedda Ganganna, Preveously Tractor Cooli, R/o. Bakkannagaripalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT N0.1/APPLICANT B. Bange Naik, (Major), S/o. Venkata Naik, Bakkannagaripalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District. (R2 disd for Default vide C.O dated 19/09/2011) ...RESPONDENT N0.2/OPP PARTY 1 « Counsel for the Appellant{s) : SRI A SAI ROHIT Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L J VEERA REDDY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010647202013 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: 1014/2013 Between; ...APPELLANT National Insurance Company Limited AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Guvvala Gangaiah And Another and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.A.SAI ROHIT Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.LJVEERA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 1014/2013 JUDGMENT; The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.04.2008 in W.C.No.157 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as 2. under;- The claimant filed the above claim application stating that the he was working as tractor coolie under Opposite Party No.1 in the Tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 04 C 5763 and 5764 and was earning Rs.lOO/- per day and on 01.07.2004 he along with five other coolies were going in the tractor and trail of the Opposite Party No.1 for loading and unloading the mud in the land of Opposite Party No.1 and when the tractor reached near Gajji Banda Botto of Bakkannagaripalli Village, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and as',a result of which, the claimant and five other coolies 3 were received grevious injuries in the said accident. A case in Cr.No.54 of 2004 of Vempalli Police Station was registered against the driver of the tractor. It was averred in the claim petition that due to the injuries, he spend Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses and he sustained permanent disability and not able to work and lost source of income. As the claimant was aged 50 years and earning Rs.lOO/- per month as salary at the time of the accident, a claim application was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Opposite Party No.1/owner of the vehicle remained ex 3. 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 and the liability to pay compensation. It was averred in the Counter that tractor trailer was hired by one G. Sreenivasulu Reddy to one Sri Ram Naik, who in turn engaged 8 coolies and therefore, there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence. Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to indemnify the liability of first opposite party and there was no permanent disability to the applicant. i 4 On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner 4. framed following issues: Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an accident and received previous fracture injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What is the age of the applicant at the time of accident? 1. 3. What are the wages paid to the applicant at the time of accident? 4. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant ? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant and to what relief? On behalf of the claimant, Aws. 1 and 2 were 5. examined and EXs. A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Party No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 Policy was marked. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,13,541/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 6. 1 5 7. Heard Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri LJ. Veera Reddy, 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 19.09.2011 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for appellant/s is/are permitted to take out fresh batta to the respondent No.2 and personal notice to the concerned respondent/s to the correct address by registered post with acknowledgment due or by courier service and file proof of service within four 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 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/0.P.No.1/Respondent No.2 stood dismissed as 6 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/0.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/0.P.No.1 “jointly and severally” liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-a-vis the owner/0.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.l-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 favourable order can be passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders. Therefore, the present Appeal is dismissed. There 11. shall be no order as to costs. As there is long delay of 21 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimant/s, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and ensure that the compensation is paid 12. 7 H 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. SOI- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^Tf^^FFICER SE To. 1. The Commissioner Workmens Compensation and Asst Commissioner of Labour,Kadapa 2. One CC to SRI. A.SAI ROHIT Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. L J VEERA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Member Secretary, State Legal Service Authority, Secretariat Road,Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES TAC HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.1014 of 2013 g 0‘iAfR20?5 g, Current Section THE CMA IS DISMISSED