IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2010 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 353 OF 2010 MISS M. LAKSHMI CHITRA ... Applicant Versus SHRI RAHUL BHIKAJI BHUTAL AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Audhut S. Arsekar, Advocate for the applicant. Coram:- A. S. OKA, J. Date:- 23rd July, 2010 P.C.:- The second respondent-insurer is served with the notice. None appears for the second respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant invited attention of the Court to what is stated in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment. It is stated that the first respondent did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the first respondent is liable along with the second respondent, who is the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation to the applicant. 2. In view of what is held by this Court in the case of Bismulla Abidulla Ansari & Anr. vs. Kishorkumar N. Shah and anr., (2008(5) Bom.C.R. 252), it is not necessary to serve a notice of this application to the first respondent and for the purposes of this application, the notice is dispensed with. The delay is only of two days. In view of the averments made in the application, the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. A. S. OKA, J. ssm.