G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) ON account of the death of Harijana Thippanna in a Motor Accident, his wife and son filed a claim petition under Section 100-A of the Motor Vehicles act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. The owner remained ex parte. The insurance Company took all the available pleas, but they have not taken the plea about the statutory liability that has to be fixed. After contest, it has been found by the Tribunal that the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased and the claimants are therefore, entitled for a compensation Rs. 24,000/- and fixed the liability jointly and severally. It is against that, the Insurance Company filed the appeal.

( 2 ) THE main contention that has been raised by the claimants is that the appeal itself is not maintainable. That contention has no force. When the owner himself remained ex parte and he allowed the court to pass an order on the merits, non impleading of the owner by the Insurance Company cannot be said to be a fatal one. In an earlier case this court had an occasion to Consider the addition to sub-clause (4) to Order 41, Rule 14 of CPC and held that the purpose of the amendment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document