1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 1412 of 2009 IN First Appeal St. No.5365 of 2009 [The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheshrao P. Gavai & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Sanyal, Adv., for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 15th July, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The appeal is delayed by 118 days. 2. Heard. 3. Accepting the reasons stated in the application leading to occurrence of delay to be good and sufficient, delay is condoned. 4. Application is disposed of. Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. First Appeal St. No.5365 of 2009 [The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheshrao P. Gavai & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Sanyal, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 15th July, 2009. 1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.S. Sanyal for the appellant. 3. The Motor Accident Claim Petition was opposed with the pleadings as follows:- 4. The respondent no.3 has opposed the petition, on the ground that it is not responsible to pay the compensation, as the insurance does not cover the risk of auto rickshaw involved in the alleged accident. The respondent no.3 has denied the injuries sustained by son of the petitioners and that it is liable to pay the compensation. The respondent no.3 denied the age of the son of the petitioners. The respondent no.3 submitted that 3 respondent no.1 was not driving auto in question in rash and negligent manner and had not caused injuries to the son of petitioners. Substance of the submission is that the petition be dismissed. 4. In the trial, however, the Insurance Company felt content with cross-examination, and did not lead any evidence. 5. It is seen that even in the cross- examination, nothing fruitful was elicited. While discussing the evidence, learned Trial Judge observed in para 6 of the Judgment as follows:- 6. .......................... ..........Nothing has come on record to disbelieve the testimony of Sheshrao. Hence considering the material placed on record, my view is that the petitioners have established that at the relevant time, near the house Gunwantabai Bardiya, their son namely Mangesh was injured due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No. MH-30/E-5761 driven by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 6. In the aforesaid background, the appeal is absolutely without any merit. Just because the Insurance Company is aggrieved is not a ground to challenge the Award. Moreover, the 4 amount awarded is not on the higher side. 7. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 5