:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2391 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5484 OF 2006 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Kisan Vitthal Kanade & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.G.Deshpande for the appellants. Mr.M.A.Utgikar for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.3.2006 in M.A.C.P. No.1271 of 2000 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, allowing the claim application instituted by the respondent-claimants. The appeal was initially directed against the claimants and the owners of the vehicle. It appears that vide order dated 29.8.2008 a conditional order was passed directing the appellants to take steps to serve respondent nos.3 and 4, i.e. the owners, within four weeks. There is no dispute that the insurance company failed to take steps as directed vide order dated 29.8.2008 and as a result thereof the appeal stands dismissed against the said respondents. The :2: :2: :2: insurance company has not taken any steps for restoration of the appeal against respondent nos.3 and 4. It is against this backdrop Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment solely on the ground that at the relevant time the vehicle was driven by a person who was not holding valid licence and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In other words, he submitted that it is a liability of the insured, namely, the owners of the vehicle who are respondent nos.3 and 4, to pay compensation to respondent nos.1 and 2 - claimants. Since the appeal has already been dismissed for non prosecution against respondent nos.3 and 4 - owners, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be entertained and must be rejected outright. In view of the dismissal of the appeal against respondent nos.3 and 4 the appeal cannot be allowed on the ground of challenge. Even at this stage there is no request from the learned counsel for the appellant for adjournment to take steps for restoration of the appeal against respondent nos.3 and 4. In the circumstances this appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. Order accordingly. Consequently, civil application is disposed of. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)