HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Dated 31-12-2009 C.M.A. No.3633 OF 2000 Between: Reddy Suryanarayana and another. ……Appellants. And: Purapu Laxmanarao and another. ……Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No.3633 OF 2000 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.83,400/- with interest at 12% p.a., on the compensation 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 seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on the ground of death of their son deceased Reddy Raghu who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19-2-1998. 4. The 1st respondent herein was the driver of the crime vehicle-lorry and 2nd respondent is the owner thereof and 3rd respondent is the insurer. The 2nd respondent filed a counter and the same was adopted by the 1st respondent-driver of the lorry. The 3rd respondent insurer remained ex parte. 5. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. On consideration of evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.83,400/-. Not satisfying with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal. 7. As seen from the record and the impugned order, the 3rd respondent-insurer was set ex parte. The Oriental Insurance represented by its Branch Manager, Salur was impleaded as 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. 8. It is not disputed that there was no branch of Oriental Insurance Company at Saluru and the concerned Office is that of Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. In the appeal, the cause title was permitted to be amended by impleading the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company as 3rd respondent in the place of Branch Manager Saluru as notice was taken before the Tribunal to the non-existent party-respondent. 9. The order passed against the 3rd respondent by the Tribunal setting the 3rd respondent ex parte is not sustainable as the notice was not taken to the concerned party namely the Oriental Insurance Company represented by the Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam. The order passed by the Tribunal erroneously setting non-existent party respondent ex parte and passing award against such respondent, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving liberty to the 3rd respondent namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, the Divisional Office, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam to file a counter and contest the matter. Both parties are at liberty to adduce such further evidence as they may choose to let in. 10. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 1998, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the C.M.A. is disposed of as stated above. _____________________________ Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY Dated 31-12-2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No.3633 OF 2000 Dated 31-12-2009