MAGADRI SATYANARAYANA Vs. B JAYARAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the claimant. THE Tribunal below dismissed the original petition against all the respondents, viz., the first respondent, owner of the vehicle, the driver,the second respondent and the insurance company the third respondent. In the appeal, unfortunately, respondents No. 1 and i.e., the owner and the driver have not been impleaded starting that they are not necessary parties, as they had remained ex parte in the lower court, Notice is taken out only to the third respondent insurance company which was served. When I pointed out that a decree cannot be considered on merits in the absence of the insured, the first respondent, owner of the vehicle, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Order 41, rule 14(4), Civil Procedure Code, and contended that since they had remained ex parte in the Tribunal below, it is not necessary to send notice to them. THErefore, the appeal can be considered on merits as against the insurance company and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. I find no force in this contention. Order 41,rule 14(4), Civil Procedure Code, postulates that