1 APHC010042452012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 625/2012 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Guntur. ...APPELLANT AND Smt Battula Malleswari And 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 625 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act, 1923’), by the Insurance Company questioning the Order dated 28-12-2005 in W.C.No.2 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Claim Petition before the Commissioner are as follows: The Applicant No.1 is the wife, Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased--Battula Srinivasa Rao. The deceased was working as a driver under Opposite Party No.1 in a Taxi Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 7T 718. On 28.12.2002 the deceased late Srinivasa Rao, while working as driver in the said Car, developed chest pain and died on the same day at 08.00 pm. At the time of his death, the Taxi Car was being driven by him with passengers from Guntur to Narasayapalem in Bapatla Mandalam, Guntur District. The incident happened when the Car reached Budampadu Village. Thus, the claimants claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased was being paid Rs.2000/- per month as monthly wages and Rs.1000/- as batta. 3 (ii) On filing the application, the Opposite Party No.1 remained ex parte. Opposite Party No.2, in whose name the Policy stands, also remained ex parte. (iii) The Appellant herein/Insurance Company filed its Counter Affidavit opposing the claim by disputing the incident, salary and other aspects of the claim Petition. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner, which read as follows: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to Heart Attack due to stress and strain arising out of and in the course of his employment ? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the Deceased at the time of the accident ? 4. Amount of compensation payable ? and 5. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 4. In support of the claim, the Claimant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and another person by name Pamuri Mahalakshmaiah was examined as Aw.2 and Exs. A.1 to A.11 were marked and Sri D. Sangeetha Rao was examined as CW.1 and Sri K. S. Chakravarthy was examined as CW.2 and marked Exs. C.1 to C.8. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Sri R. Adi Seshu was 4 examined as RW.1 and Ex.M.1 was marked. 5. The Commissioner, after considering the respective evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.2,46,728/- by making Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally responsible for the said amount. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Appellant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 7. Respondent No.4 is one of the Claimant, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the Employer and the Policy Holder of the vehicle respectively. As the Notices to Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 were not served, this Court on 20.07.2016 passed the following Order: “Learned counsel for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent Nos. 4,6 and 7 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within four weeks. Failing which, Petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against the Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7”. 8. As the above peremptory order was not complied by the Appellant, the Appeal against Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 stood dismissed as per the endorsement of the Registry. Thereafter no application is filed to recall or set aside the Order. 5 9. This Court is of the opinion that the Order of the Commissioner making both the Appellant and the Respondent No.6 & 7 jointly and severally liable for the amount had attained finality. As the vicarious liability of the Respondent No.6/Employer stood crystallized “jointly and severally” with the insurance company, the present appeal cannot be maintained as any contrary order by this Court in this appeal would lead to inconsistent orders. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed on this short ground 10. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.02.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA No. 625 of 2012 Date: 10.02.2025 eha U