THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.426 of 2005 DATE:18.09.2009 Between: Guduri Lachaiah and another … Appellants And Vemula Ganesh and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.426 of 2005 ORDER: The appellants filed O.P.No.703 of 2003 before the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, against respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation on account of the death of their father by name Viswanadham. The 2nd respondent i.e. the Insurance Company raised a plea that the 1st respondent is not the owner of the vehicle and the particulars of the owner concerned were furnished. The appellants made necessary enquiries, and on coming to know that the 3rd respondent is the owner, they filed I.A.1295 of 2004. On 28.09.2004, the Tribunal dismissed the I.A. as well as the O.P. for default. I.A.1717 of 2004 was filed for restoration of the I.A. and I.A.1716 of 2004 was filed for restoration of the O.P. Through separate orders, dated 07.04.2005, the Tribunal allowed I.A.1716 of 2004, but dismissed the other I.A. Hence this appeal. Heard Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kota Subbarao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Though respondents 1 and 3 are served with notices, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The O.P. in the form in which it was presented was defective, inasmuch as the actual owner of the vehicle was not made a party. Soon after noticing this, the appellants initiated necessary steps and filed I.A.1295 of 2004. It is, no doubt, true that I.A.1295 of 2004 together with the O.P. was dismissed for default. However, restoration of the O.P. and refusal to restore the I.A.1295 of 2004 would hardly be of any use. The reason is that in the O.P. shorn of I.A.1295 of 2004, there would not be the actual owner. The approach of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that in the event of any compensation being awarded, his client may not be mulcted with the liability to pay interest. Though the point urged by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is reasonable, it needs to be observed that the appellants were also not equally at fault. The O.P. remained dismissed for default for a very short time. All these years, the O.P. could not be proceeded on account of the dismissal of I.A.1717 of 2004. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the interest can be denied for a period of three years. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A.1717 of 2004 shall stand allowed. The result would be that I.A.1295 of 2004 is restored to file. Since the 3rd respondent is already served, it is directed that I.A.1295 of 2004 shall stand allowed. In the event of any compensation being awarded to the appellants, the interest thereon shall be denied, for a period of three years preceding the date of order in the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th September, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.426 of 2005 18th September, 2009 CBS