IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.854 OF 2006 Between: Injam Nandu and others …Appellants A n d B.Sujatha and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.854 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07-02-2003 in W.C.No.133 of 1999, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Khammam, wherein the claim of the appellants/applicants was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,95,945/- against the owner of the vehicle alone and exonerating the insurance company from the liability. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. None appeared for the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. Perused the records. 3. The appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased, who was driver of lorry bearing No.AIW 8789 and died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02-04-1999 during the course of employment. A criminal case in Cr.No.31 of 1999 was also registered under Section 304-A IPC. The applicants claimed that the deceased was aged 25 years earning Rs.2,000/- per month towards salary and Rs.400/- per month towards batta. 4. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, passed award for a sum of Rs.2,95,945/-. He, however, directed the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent herein, alone to pay the compensation and totally exonerated the second respondent-insurer from the liability to pay the compensation. 5. The only ground on which the second respondent was exonerated was that the first respondent did not appear before the tribunal and produce the documents and remained ex parte. Admittedly, the vehicle was covered by the policy- Ex.R-2 issued by the second respondent and by the date of accident, the policy was in force. In the event of award being passed against the owner, the learned Commissioner ought to have fastened joint and several liability on the insurer, as there was valid insurance coverage in operation. Simply because the first respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the second respondent-insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. The ground on which the learned Commissioner exonerated the second respondent-insurer, is totally untenable. There is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased or the income or the multiplier applied by the learned Commissioner. 6. Thus, while confirming the award passed by the learned Commissioner for a sum of Rs.2,95,945/-, it is directed that the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the insured and the insurer, are both jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. The amount shall be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents are liable to pay interest at 9% p.a., from the date the amount falls due. 7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd October, 2009. Lrkm.