NARCIVHA CHARI Vs. JOAO FARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prashil Arolkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Reshma Satardekar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3, and Mr. P. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

(2.) At the commencement of the final hearing of this appeal, Ms. Satardekar pointed out that respondent no.3, i.e. the owner of the vehicle has since expired. Mr. Arolkar, however, submitted that respondent no.1 is the son of respondent no.3, who was incidentally the driver of the offending vehicle. Having regard to this circumstance, we continued with the final hearing since even otherwise respondent no.1 would represent the interest of deceased respondent no.3.

(3.) Further, there was also some discrepancy about the names of respondents nos.1 & 3. Accordingly, leave is granted to the claimant to indicate the correct names in the cause title. The claimant will also have to indicate in the cause title the factum of the demise of respondent no.3 and make an endorsement of her deletion for which leave is now granted. Mr. Arolkar states that such amendment/correction will be carried out forthwith.