IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLN.NO.2035 OF 2008 IN F.A.ST.NO.8895/2008 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant. Vs. Shri.Venkatachari S. Kanchi and ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for the Applicant. Mr.T.J.Mendon for the Respondents 1 to 6. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 24th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend the application to correct the days of the delay and the date of the award. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The Advocate for the respondents 1 to 6 waives service. 2. Heard both sides. There is a delay of 187 days in filing the main appeal. In the interest of justice for the reasons stated in the application and which are accepted, civil application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. (R. S. MOHITE, J.) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8895 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2036 OF 2008 IN F.A.ST.NO.8895/2008 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. Shri.Venkatachari S. Kanchi and ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for the Appellant. Mr.T.J.Mendon for the Respondents 1 to 6. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 24th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the Advocate for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. This is the first appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The stand taken by the Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim filed by the original respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are claimants is that the offending truck was not insured with them. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the accident in question took place on 17.3.1987. In the claim filed by the claimant Nos. 1 to 6 the summons were served on the Insurance Company in 1994. From the R.T.O. record the claimants have found that the offending truck had been insured under Cover Note No.21298. After service of summons the Insurance Company took stand that this Cover Note No.21298 was in respect of a scooter. However, strangely the original of this Cover Note No.21298 was never produced in the court. It was contended by them that the original of this cover note was with the owner of the scooter. In so far as original office copy was concerned, they contended that it was destroyed in the year 1979. What was sought to be produced in the year 1996 was a zerox copy of the office copy. Apart from this no attempt was made by the Insurance Company to summon the scooter owner as its witness or to get the original insurance note summoned for the perusal of the court. The Insurance company also did not produce the premium register to show that the scooter owner was paying premium. The Officer examined from the R.T.O. office and the documents produced from the R.T.O. Office show that the truck was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. The witness for the Insurance company was confronted with these documents. He gave evasive reply. In this view of the matter, in my view, there is no substance in the first appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2036 OF 2008 1. As the main appeal is rejected, civil application for stay of the impugned award does not survive and the same is also rejected. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)