JUDGMENT : This Appeal is filed against Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the National Insurance Co., Ltd., questioning the Order dated 29.01.2010 in W.C.No.5 of 2008 passed by the Learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: One S. Murali was working as Driver under O.P.No.1 on his Tractor bearing No.AP 03 S 8452 and O.P.No.2 is the insurer for that vehicle. In the course of employment, while the deceased was driving the Tractor on 11.12.2006 an accident had occurred, where under the deceased lost control over the Tractor and fell under the wheels of the Tractor and died on the spot. A crime in Cr.No.71 of 2006 was registered in Yerpedu P.S., immediately. As the deceased was aged about 26 years and was getting wages of Rs.4,500/- per month, a claim application was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from O.P.Nos.1 & 2 along with the interest. 4. On behalf of the Claimants, the mother of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 apart from one S. Munisekhar as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 i.e., Copy of Insurance Policy on its behalf. 5. The Commissioner after examining the oral and documentary evidence held that there is an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and O.P.No.1 even though they are brothers and that the accident had occurred in the course of employment. The Commissioner in his Order held that O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,90,729/- to the claimants. Hence, the Appeal. 6. This Court on 19.04.2016 had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for petitioner(s)/appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.5 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within eight weeks. Failing which, petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent No.5.” 7. Hence, the Appeal. 6. This Court on 19.04.2016 had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for petitioner(s)/appellant(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.5 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service within eight weeks. Failing which, petition/appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court as against respondent No.5.” 7. As per the endorsement of the Registry, the above order of this Court was not complied with and as such, the appeal stood dismissed against respondent No.5 i.e., O.P.No.1. As the appeal stood dismissed against O.P.No.1/respondent No.5, the order of the Commissioner attained finality against respondent No.5/O.P.No.1. The Insurance Company, which is jointly and severally responsible for paying compensation along with Respondent No.5/Opposite Party No.1, cannot seek to argue the case on merits. This Court has no option, but to dismiss the appeal on this short ground. 8. Accordingly, C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.