APHC010101352007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 588/2007 Between: The Br.manager, United India Insurance ...APPELLANT AND Kesava Prasad And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SUDHA 2. . The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.588 of 2007 JUDGMENT: 1. The present C.M.A is filed against the Award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur in W.C.No.12 of 2001 dated 09.12.2002. 2. The application claiming compensation was filed by the Respondent No.1/Claimant. As per the claim, the Claimant was working as Sub-Editor of Respondent No.2-Company. While the Claimant was discharging his duties, he met with an accident and received grievous injury including fracture to his middle finger to left hand due to the rash driving of the opposite bus driver and a claim application was filed. Before the Commissioner, the Claimant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. The Commissioner after considering the nature of the injuries and the evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.58,708/-. Hence, the present C.M.A was filed. 3. Heard Sri N. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the Appellant- insurance company. 4. As the notice to the Respondent No.1 was not served, this Court on 20.09.2005 passed the following order:- “Two weeks time is granted for complying with the offence objections. In default, the appeal stands dismissed as against Respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants is permitted to take out personal notice as against the Respondent No.1 by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.” 3 5. As per the endorsement of the Registry, the above order was not complied with by the insurance company and consequently the appeal stood dismissed for default against the Respondent No.1. 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal against the Respondent No.1, the insurance company cannot maintain the present appeal. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 27.01.2025 IS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.588 of 2007 Date: 27.01.2025 IS