1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.969 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.Y.Patil, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.U.S.Malte, Adv., for respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 and 2 served. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 9th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard the Counsel extensively. In an accident of Metadoor and Ambassador Car, the Ambassador Car suffered losses and the proposed expenditure was quoted as Rs.2,08,966/- for which claim was lodged as against the Insurance Company of the Metadoor and driver of the Metadoor. The learned Judge dismissed the claim petition as authority of the person deposing of filing petition is not coherently established. The bills are not established, audited accounts are not produced. No certification is appended to the bills or accounts produced. 2. In paragraph no.11, the learned Judge has dealt with answer to issue no.1 about negligence and the nature of accident. During the course of 2 submissions, I have inquired with the Counsel for the appellant as to what is the plight of the driver of the Ambassador and, naturally, he is alive, was available at the material time to depose on behalf of the appellant, being in employment. However, no efforts are made to get him to establish that it was offending Metadoor which is covered under the Insurance that the respondent herein, is responsible for the accident and, consequent thereupon, to meet the damages. This basic defect has further been deepened if one peruses the set of documents produced. 3. The claim at one stage appears to be based on estimate of repairs of the vehicle involved in the accident, at other stage, it is tried to be explained by virtue of the documents at Exh.48, 58. However, barring estimate there is nothing to indicate that, indeed, such exenses are incurred by the Department or that such expenses are paid over to anybody. Learned Judge has observed and rightly that there is nothing to show acting on the part of appellant in discharge of his liability arising out of the damages suffered by it by remittance to the respective dealers. 4. No details of the age of the vehicle are furnished, its particulars are bound to be given as naturally it attracts depreciation, to award the reimbursement. Another aspect in the matter is, 3 the claim was lodged with the Government, as per the witness, however, nothing to indicate any amount having been received from the Government or the claim is pending. There could not have been two claims for one accident, without apportioning the liability sought. The evidence of the two witnesses was not proving either the nature of the accident or the bills suffered by the Department. Taking survey of the entire evidence adduced, the dismissal of the claim for damages is just. No interference. Appeal dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/fa969-07