1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Velho Building, 3rd Floor, Panaji-Goa. ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Gangabai Swamiling Hatarkar, resident of Dhabdaba, Taluka Bicholim, Goa. 2. Santosh Uttam Jalmi Major, driver, Residing at Bagwada, H.No. Not known. Piligao, Taluka Bicholim, Goa. 3. Shri M/s Dempo Mining Corporation Ltd., having its head office at Campal “Dempo House” Panaji, Goa. 4. Babli Ganesh Raut, Major, resident of Mulgao P.O. Assnora-Goa. ... Respondents Shri Emerico Afonso, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4. 2 Ms. A. Pereira, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2011. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, Shri P. Rao, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms. A. Pereira, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. 2. Respondent No.2 though served has remained absent. 3. After hearing the matter for some time, Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that from the same accident which is the subject matter of the above appeal, this Court vide Judgment dated 6-4-2009 passed in First Appeal No.53 of 2006 has held that the Appellant is not liable to effect the payment of the compensation but, however, such amount is to be paid by Respondent No.4/Operator. All the learned Counsel concede that the accident involved in the above appeal was also the subject matter of First Appeal No.53 of 2006 3 disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 6-4-2009, though the claimants were different. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel, I find no reason to take a contrary view to the one held by this Court in the said Judgment. For the reasons stated in the said Judgment dated 6-4-2009, I find that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed but, however, the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal is to be paid by Respondent No.4 herein. 5. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 states, on instructions, that the amount of compensation shall be paid to Respondent No.1 within three months from today. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 29-3-2005 against the Appellant is quashed and set aside and the same is modified to the extent that the 4 compensation as awarded in the impugned Judgment is directed to be paid by Respondent No.4 herein within 3 months from today. 3. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. RD