1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.167 OF 1996 Ananda Garbad Bachochav & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Bibabai Mangu Pawar & Ors. ..Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.105 OF 1996 Ananda Garbad Bachochav & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Sumanbai Mangu Sonawane & Ors. ..Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1255 OF 1996 Ananda Garbad Bachochav & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Jijabai Shantaram Pawar & Ors. ..Respondents None for the Appellants Mr. Khaire i/b Mr. P.N. Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. Ashwin Giri i/b M/s. Jay & Co. for Respondent No.4 CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATED: 9th February, 2010 P.C. 1. Perusal of the farad sheet shows that on 14 th December 2 2009, 15 th December 2009 and on 18 th January 2010 none appeared for the Appellants in these Appeals. When the appeals were called out on 8 th February 2010, again none appeared for the Appellants. Therefore, the appeals were adjourned till today. Today when the Appeals are called out, none appeared for the Appellants. Hence, there is no option, but to dismiss the Appeals for non-prosecution. However, Learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants (Respondent Nos.1 to 3) invited my attention to the impugned Judgment and Award and submitted that this is a fit case where this Court will have to exercise power under Rule 33 of order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to pass an Award against the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Appellants are the driver and the owner respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal passed an Award in favour of the Claimants against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 3 However, the claim as against Respondent No.4 insurer has been dismissed on the ground that it is not established that there was a valid insurance on the date of the accident. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants submitted that there are two certificates issued by the RTO office placed on record, at Exhibits 30 and 31 respectively. He submitted that both the certificates refer to the same cover note No.30502, but for different periods. He submitted that the validity periods of the policy mentioned in both the RTO certificates cover the date of the accident. He submitted that the certificates constitute evidence of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured on the date of the accident with the 4 th Respondent insurance company. 3. I have considered the said submissions. I find that the insurer examined Vijaykumar Vinayake, its Assistant Administrative Officer. Perusal of his evidence shows that 4 he categorically stated before the Court that the number of the cover note issued by Respondent No.4 is always of six digits. He stated that on the relevant date, the vehicle in question was not insured with Respondent No.4. As pointed out earlier, the cover note number set out in the RTO certificates is of five digits. In view of the evidence of the said Vijaykumar, the Learned Member of the Tribunal has discarded the evidence in the form of RTO certificates. There is one more reason for discarding the said certificates. The date of commencement of the policy mentioned in both the certificates is different, though the cover note number mentioned is same. Therefore, this is not a case where a finding can be recorded that the vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No.4 on the date of the accident. Therefore, prayer made by the 1 st and 3 rd Respondents cannot be acceded to. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The Appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. 5 (ii) The prayer made by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for exercise power under Rule 33 of Order XL of code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is rejected. (iii) Civil Application No.6982 of 1996 is dismissed. Ad- interim relief granted in these appeals stands forthwith vacated. (A.S.OKA, J)