1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.179/2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14 th July, 2009. ... 1) Heard Counsel extensively. With their assistance, Record and Proceedings is verified. The appeal is finally heard and disposed of. 2) The grievance of the appellant/insurance company is the driving license to which reliance was placed to be belonging to Himmat More, by itself is wrong as the driving license was not of Himmat More, but it was of one Ashok Govind Halgunde. 3) During the course of submissions, it is pointed from respondents that the driver of the offending truck is not arrayed as party in the proceeding. The FIR disclosed that the impact due to negligent driving was by an unknown driver of the truck, and consequently, according to the respondent, it cannot be said that 2 either the vehicle was driven by Himmat More or that he was not possessing a valid license. 4) The deceased was 26 years old. The learned Judge in spite of there being certificate, showing that he was having income of Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/-, a month, notionally treated the same to be annually Rs.36,000/- and has applied multiplier of 8 to reach the conclusion. 5) The insurance company did not plead that the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized driver or that he did not possess a valid license. That apart, the evidence of RTO clerk Mr. More does not accelerate that there is no license of Himmat More with the RTO Pune. It is only the evidence concerning particular license number, specifying that it was issued in the name of Ashok Halgunde. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company, I have put both the licenses in juxtaposition and surprisingly I found that the license purporting to be of Himmat More has blurt digit numbers, which apparently are contrary to the license numbers referred in particulars of Ashok Halgunde. The fact is, therefore, established that the license particulars produced by the 3 appellant/insurance company were of Ashok Halgunde and they could not establish that there was no valid license of Himmat More. There is no other point advanced by the appellant insurance company. 6) Taking survey of the above details, I do not find any merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/fa179.09