APHC010034422005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the ninth day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Between: G.Reddeppa Naidu and V. Venkata Ramana and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. P. V. Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents: 1. B. L. Prasuna The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the ninth day of March two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2799 of 2005 V. Venkata Ramana and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: P. V. Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the ninth day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Appeal No.2799 of 2005 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2799 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award dated 01.03.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2. The sole appellant was the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. Pending the appeal, since the appellant died, his wife and children were brought on record as the appellants Nos.2 to 4. 3. The case of the claimant is, briefly stated, as follows:- The claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident occurred on 23.02.1992 while he was going on a motor cycle hit by a jeep bearing No.AP 03- A/3870 of the respondent No.1 insured with the respondent No.2 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. The claim petition was opposed by both the respondents. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. 4. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was preferred by the claimant. 5. The appeal against the respondent No.1 was dismissed for default as per the order of this Court dated 08.02.2016. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2799 of 2005 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the steps could not be taken to get the appeal restored against the respondent No.1 since notices sent to the appellants Nos.2 to 4 through post with acknowledgment due were returned un-served. Thus, the appeal against the respondent No.1 stands dismissed for default. 7. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued to enhance the amount of compensation stating that the amount granted by the Tribunal is meagre. 8. There is no representation for the respondent No.2, though appeared through counsel. 9. Since the appeal against the respondent No.1 / insured was dismissed for default, the appeal against the respondent No.2 / insurer alone does not independently survive. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed even against the respondent No.2. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 09.03.2026 GRL / RAR