P. Yadamma vs Shankarlal and Another

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—This is an appeal by the Claimant against O.P. 434 of 1985 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, for enhancement of compensation.

The only short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

Whether the appeal is maintainable against the Insurance Company when the appeal against the owner of the vehicle is dismissed for default?

In this case, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. On account of non-payment of batta to the first respondent owner by virtue of an order of this Court dated 25.10.1989, the appeal against the first respondent is dismissed for default

Mr. Kotta Subba Rao, learned Counsel for me second respondent, Insurance Company, relying upon a decision in Magadri Satyanarayana Vs. B. Jayaramarao and others, contended that until and unless the liability has been fixed on the owner of the vehicle, the question of fixing liability on the Insurance Company does not arise. He further contends that as the appeal has been dismissed against the first respondent for default, the appeal as against the second respondent, Insurance Company, also should be dismissed. On a perusal of the decision cited above, I am in total agreement with the learned Counsel for the second respondent, Insurance Company. Accordingly, I hold that inasmuch as the appeal against me owner of the vehicle has been dismissed for default, the appeal in respect of the Insurance Company is also liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

No costs.