CMA/3633/2000 of Reddy Suryanarayana Vs Purapu Laxmanarao on 31 December 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-10-2000 in M.O.P.No.599 of 1998 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram whereinthe claim of the appellants was allowed in part awardingcompensation of Rs.83,400/- with interest at 12% p.a., on thecompensation amount from the date of the petition.

2. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the respondents and perused the record.

3. The appellants filed a claim petition seekingcompensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on the ground of death of their sondeceased Reddy Raghu who died in a motor vehicle accident thatoccurred on 19-2-1998.

4. The 1[st] respondent herein was the driver of thecrime vehicle-lorry and 2[nd] respondent is the owner thereofand 3[rd] respondent is the insurer. The 2[nd] respondent filed acounter and the same was adopted by the 1[st] respondent-driver of the lorry. The 3[rd] respondent insurer remained ex parte.

5. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of theclaimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced onbehalf of the respondents.

6. On consideration of evidence available on record,the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.83,400/-. Notsatisfying with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal.

7. As seen from the record and the impugned order,the 3[rd] respondent-insurer was set ex parte. The OrientalInsurance represented by its Branch Manager, Salur wasimpleaded as 3[rd] respondent before the Tribunal.

8. It is not disputed that there was no branch ofOriental Insurance Company at Saluru and the concerned Office isthat of Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam. In the appeal, the cause title was permitted to beamended by impleading the Divisional Manager of the InsuranceCompany as 3[rd] respondent in the place of Branch ManagerSaluru as notice was taken before the Tribunal to the non-existentparty-respondent.

9. The order passed against the 3[rd] respondent by theTribunal setting the 3[rd] respondent ex parte is not sustainable asthe notice was not taken to the concerned party namely theOriental Insurance Company represented by the DivisionalManager, Visakhapatnam. The order passed by the Tribunalerroneously setting non-existent party respondent ex parte andpassing award against such respondent, therefore, held liable tobe set aside and is accordingly, set aside. The matter is,therefore, remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after givingliberty to the 3[rd] respondent namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, theDivisional Office, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam to file a counterand contest the matter. Both parties are at liberty to adduce suchfurther evidence as they may choose to let in.

10. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of theyear 1998, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same afreshwithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

11. In the result, the C.M.A. is disposed of as statedabove.

Dated 31-12-2009.

Dvs

_____________________________

Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

C.M.A. No.3633 OF 2000Dated 31-12-2009