APHC010664602011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1421/2011 Between: Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anatapur ...APPELLANT AND G Khadar Basha And 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.1421 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 13.09.2005 in W.C.No.62 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:- The claimants, being father, mother, and younger brother of one Shaik Masthan Vali @ Masthan (herein after referred to as deceased) filed the claim application stating that the deceased was working as a Cleaner under Opposite Party No.1 in the Tempo bearing No.A.P.02-V-4208. On 07.12.2002, he left to Chennai and proceeding towards Kadiri side and during the course of employment, the vehicle met with an accident near Himalaya Cold Storage on Punganur-Palamaneru Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Punganur for treatment and later he referred to S.V.R.R.Hospital, Thirupathi and he died on the 3 way on 08.12.2002. A case in Cr.No.163 of 2002 was registered by Punganur P.S. As the deceased was aged 20 years and earning Rs.4,000/- per month at the time of the accident, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. Opposite Party No.1/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Opposite Party No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased workman at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable.? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. In the course of evidence, the father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 in 4 support of his claim. On behalf of the Respondents, no oral or documentary evidenced was let in. 7. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence let in, awarded an amount of Rs.2,30,384/- to be paid by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 8. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. As the notice to Respondent No.4 i.e. owner of the vehicle was not served in the Appeal, 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.4 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.4.” 9. As the order was not complied with, the appeal against the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.4 stood dismissed as per the endorsement made by the Registry. 5 No application was filed seeking to set-aside the default order. 10. As the appeal against the owner/O.P.No.1/Respondent No.4 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.4. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallised in view of dismissal of the appeal against O.P.No.1-owner/Respondent No.4, 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. 11. Therefore, the present Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As there is long time delay 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 6 paid to the claimants 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: 17.02.2025 KLP