THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.M.A.No.2367 of 1999 And C.M.A.No.1444 of 2000 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 16.03.1998, passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad, in O.P.No.113 of 1996, and also the order and decree, dated 06.10.1998, passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad, in O.P.No.137 of 1997, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has preferred the appeals C.M.A.No.2367 of 1999 and C.M.A.No.1444 of 2000, respectively. 4. As per the record, the husband of the deceased filed O.P.No.113 of 1996; while the parents of the deceased filed O.P.No.137 of 1996, for the death of the deceased, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred on 19.12.1995, involving a jeep bearing Registration No.APY-2289. 5. C.M.A.No.2367 of 1999 was dismissed for default as against respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 04.09.2002, and an application C.M.A.M.P.No.11967 of 2004 is filed seeking to condone the inordinate delay of 635 days in filing an application, seeking to set aside the said order. Since no proper reasons have been assigned in the affidavit, filed in support of the said application, to condone the inordinate delay, the said application is dismissed. 6. The only ground urged by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant is that as regards the same accident for the death of the same deceased, the parents of the deceased filed one O.P. and her husband filed another O.P. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation in both the O.Ps., fastening the liability on the insurance company twice. 7. Since the case as against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, itself was dismissed for default, in C.M.A.No.2367 of 1999, and since the application C.M.A.M.P.No.11967 of 2004, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 635 days in filing an application to set aside the said order, it is deemed that the case as against the said driver and owner of the offending vehicle was dismissed in the other appeal i.e., C.M.A.No.1444 of 2000 also. 8. For the foregoing, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 15th July 2010 dr