IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2008 SANGAPPA V. TENGINAKAI ... Appellant Versus RAJENDRA G. PEDNEKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Appellant in person. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for respondent No.1 Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. Date:- 28th July, 2008 P.C. Heard the appellant in person. Perused the records. 2. The appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 25.4.2008, passed in First Appeal No.59/2008, heavily relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Asha d/o Bhalchandra Joshi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in [2008(1) Mh.L.J. 724]. With utmost respect to the Division Bench which has decided the matter in Asha d/o Bhalchandra Joshi's case (supra), we are doubtful about the view taken in that matter. However, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine, without any further discussion, by mere reproduction of para 6 of the impugned order, which reads thus : " 6. The learned MACT observed, and in my view rightly, that the Claimant had not seen the person who was riding the motorcycle or the number of the said motorcycle at the time of accident and he was told about it by some- one else whose name the Claimant did not disclose nor examined him. In other words, the very report given by the Claimant implicates one Peter Sequeira as the rider of the motorcycle allegedly involved in the accident. It also appears that the Claimant is not very clear as to where exactly the accident took place and it can be seen from sketch produced by Head Constable Shetgaonkar/AW2 that it took place on the highway and according to the Claimant, the motorcycle came from the rear and hit his bicycle from the rear. Admittedly, the motorcycle was found on the spot. The Claimant's bicycle was found with the front wheel damaged and the learned MACT observed, and in my view rightly, that in case the dash was given from the rear, the front wheel of the cycle would not have been damaged." 3. It is clear from the record that the claimant had not seen the person who was riding the motor cycle, nor he had noted the number of the motor cycle. Further, as per the claimant and from the record, the bicycle was found with front wheel damaged; whereas, the allegations were that the bicycle was given dash from the rear side by the motorbike. Yet there is nothing on record to disclose any damage to the rear side of the bicycle. In such circumstances, we do not find any case for entertaining this appeal and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the same is liable to be rejected in limine and is, accordingly, rejected. 4. At this stage, the appellant in person prays for certificate of leave to appeal. We find no substance in the matter, nor the matter is of any public interest and, therefore, the prayer is rejected. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ssm.