IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 2667 OF 1995 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..APPELLANT V/S HASSAN SAYED HAKIM SAYED & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS MRS. A.A. AGARWAL FOR THE APPELLANT. SHRI T.J. MENDON FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant and the Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The third Respondent in this Appeal is the insured/owner of the said vehicle. The delay condonation application has been dismissed as against the third Respondent. Obviously the Appeal does not survive against the third Respondent. 2. The main challenge in the Appeal by the Appellant insurer to the impugned award is on the ground that the vehicle in question was not insured with the Appellant. If the submission of the Appellant is accepted then the third Respondent will have to be alone held liable for payment of compensation. : 2 : 3. As pointed out earlier, the Appeal as against the third Respondent is already dismissed. Therefore even if the Appellant is to succeed on the merits, the judgment and award cannot be modified in the absence of the third Respondent. In view of this position, the Appeal is not maintainable and same is dismissed. 3. No order as to costs. Statutory deposit, if made, by the Appellant shall be refunded to the Appellant. The Application for stay does not survive and the same is also dismissed. --- (A. S. OKA, J) (A. S. OKA, J) (A. S. OKA, J)