Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) West Godavari, Eluru in O.P.No.430 of 2000. 2. The principal ground of challenge in the grounds set out in appeal is that, the Claims Tribunal has granted excessive compensation by treating the income earned by the individual as more than Rs.5,000/-per month. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving licence and therefore, the terms of insurance policy are violated. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and thus the award of claims Tribunal fixing liability on appellant is erroneous. 3. In this appeal, the petitioners are arrayed as respondents 1 to 4, driver of the vehicle as 5th respondent, owner of the crime vehicle as 6th respondent, another branch office of Oriental Insurance Company Limited as 7th respondent and the owner of the car as 8th respondent. 4. Since office objections were not complied with, this Court by order dated 02.09.2011 dismissed the appeal as against 6th respondent and the said order has become final. 5. The question that arises for consideration is, is it necessary to hear the owner of the crime vehicle (6th respondent) in this appeal when he was set exparte before the claims Tribunal or dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections is fatal to the appeal ? 6. At the outset, it is appropriate to note that in the grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds, the contention on the validity of driving licence is not raised. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for appellant has trained her guns only on that issue. Assuming learned counsel can maintain this ground of challenge even without formally making it part of memorandum of grounds, learned counsel has an insurmountable task to over come more serious objection of maintainability of said ground of challenge in the absence of owner of crime vehicle as a party respondent, more so when this appeal was dismissed as against the owner of crime vehicle (6th respondent). 7. 7. In support of her contention that the appeal is maintainable and appellant is entitled to raise the ground even in the absence of owner of the crime vehicle, learned counsel for appellant relies on provision in Order 41, Rule 14 of CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since owner of the crime vehicle was set ex parte in the lower Court, there is no necessity to serve notice on him and even if the appeal is dismissed against him, still he can be made responsible. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in MARUGU KANAKARATTAMMA DIED BY PROPOSED L.R. UPPA SANTA BHUSHANAM V. KANAKALLA VEERABHADRA RAO AND OTHERS (1978 Volume 2 ALT page 171). 8. It is useful to extract Order XLI, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure. It reads as under : “Publication and service of notice of day for hearing appeal :- 1) Notice of the day fixed under rule 12 shall be affixed in the Appellate Court-house, and a like notice shall be sent by the Appellate Court to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and shall be solved on the respondent or on his pleader in the Appellate Court in the manner provided for the service on a defendant of a summons to appear and answer ; and all the provisions applicable to such summons, and to proceedings with reference to the service thereof, shall apply to the service of such notice. 2) Appellate Court may itself cause notice to be served :- Instead of sending the notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, the Appellate Court may itself cause the notice to be served on the respondent or his pleader under the provisions above referred to. 3) The notice to be served on the respondent shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum of appeal. 4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rule (1), it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the Appellate Court, unless he has appeared and filed an address for the service in the Court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal. 5) Nothing in sub-rule (4) shall bar the respondent referred to in the appeal from defending it.” 9. The scope of Order XLI, Rule 14 was considered in three decisions of this Court. In L.SOORAIAH Vs. L.SOMARAJU ( 1988 (1) APLJ 107 ) considering the above provisions after Amendment Act of 1976, this Court held as under: “…… In other words, after the amendment, it is not open to the appellate Court to dispense with notice so far as hearing of the main appeal is concerned, in respect of respondents who are defendants (or respondents) remained ex-parte in the lower court. It is however, permissible to proceed with the ‘incidental proceedings’ in the appeal such as interlocutory proceedings, without service of notice.” 10. A Division Bench of this Court in SHARIFA BEE AND OTHERS V. THE GENERAL MANAGER, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS (1990(3) ALT 628 (D.B.), wherein it was held as under: “It is to be noticed that Order XLI Rule 14(1) of the Code of the Civil Procedure had been amended in Madras in 1927 by incorporation a Proviso which stated that if a respondent was ex parte in the Court below notice to him should be dispensed with in the appeal. Following the said rule, which is applicable in Andhra Pradesh, it has been the practice to show the name of a particular party as a respondent in the cause-title and make an endorsement that no notice need go to him in the appeal when the said respondent remained ex parte in the trial Court. The above said rule was, however, modified when the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976. The above said rule was, however, modified when the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976. We now have Order XLI, Rule 14(4) which reads as follows :- “Order XLI, Rule 14(4) : Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rule (1) it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the Appellate Court, unless he has appeared and filed an address for service in the Court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal.” After the said amendment, it has become necessary to take out notices to a party respondent who has remained ex parte in the lower Court, by impleading him in the appeal as a respondent, for the purpose of a decision in the main appeal. So far as the grant of interim orders are concerned, the above said rule in Order XLI, Rule 14(4) states notice is not necessary. In other words, if a respondent had remained ex parte in the trial Court, notices need not be taken out to him while the Appellate Court is passing orders in interlocutory applications, though for the purpose of deciding the main appeal it will be necessary to take out notices to such a person. In fact, it has been held so by one of us (Jagannadha Rao, J.) in L.Sooraiah v. L.Soma Raju reported in 1988(1) APLJ 107 (HC).” 11. Following the above decision, another Division Bench of this Court in DODLA CHINNABBAI REDDY V. DODLA KUMARA SWAMI REDDY AND OTHERS ( 2002(6) ALD 415 ) upheld the similar contention with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. It was a case of suit for partition by the plaintiff against his son. Subsequently, the plaintiff also impleaded his two sisters but, after filing the written statement, they remained ex parte. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In the appeal, the appellant made an endorsement that since his sisters remained ex parte in the lower Court they need not be impleaded in the appeal. This Court held that the appeal is not maintainable in the absence of his sisters, since they are necessary parties and they have a right to participate in the appeal. 12. In the appeal, the appellant made an endorsement that since his sisters remained ex parte in the lower Court they need not be impleaded in the appeal. This Court held that the appeal is not maintainable in the absence of his sisters, since they are necessary parties and they have a right to participate in the appeal. 12. In MARUGU KANAKARATTAMMA’S case (1 supra), the issue is entertainment of miscellaneous petition in the absence of the defendants, who remained ex parte before the lower Court, as one of the parties. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that it is permissible that such petitions are maintainable without serving notice on the person who remained ex parte. The said judgment do not come to the aid of the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. In the instant case, the appellant chose to implead the owner of the crime vehicle as 6th respondent. But, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution against him. The award passed by the Claims Tribunal has become final in so far as 6th respondent is concerned vis-à-vis the appellant. 14. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the contention of the appellant that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving licence. The plea taken by the insurance company was not agreed and a specific finding was given holding that the driver of the crime vehicle was responsible for causing the accident and that since the vehicle was insured with the appellant, the driver, owner and the appellant were held to be jointly responsible to pay the compensation. Unless such a finding is upset, the responsibility cannot be transferred to the owner of the crime vehicle. It cannot be considered in the absence of owner of crime vehicle. Even though joint liability is fixed, it is mandatory for the insurance company to indemnify the owner on the amount of compensation determined in view of contract of insurance. The insurance company cannot raise the plea that driver did not have a valid driving licence, more so, such a plea is not part of the memorandum of appeal and in view of the dismissal of appeal against the owner of crime vehicle. 15. With reference to the principal ground raised in the appeal, the learned Tribunal considered the earnings of the individual based on material available on record. 15. With reference to the principal ground raised in the appeal, the learned Tribunal considered the earnings of the individual based on material available on record. No material is brought on record to discard such finding of fact recorded by the Claims Tribunal. In fact, though the petitioners claimed that the individual was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal restricted the earnings of the individual as Rs.5,000/- per month only. 16. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LAXMAN V. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANE COMPANY LIMITED ( 2012 ACJ 191 ), the Tribunal is permitted to assume guesswork, if no clear evidence is available on record to determine the wages. 17. In the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the determination of wages of the individual as Rs.5,000/- per month is just and reasonable and the Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the wages in the said manner. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No costs.