SUMESH PRAKASH INAMDAR Vs. BALAJI CARRIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties.

(2.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing tine entire record it is obvious that the appellant, even after coming to know through the RTO documents that the impugned Insurance Company was named in the RTO Office did not take any steps such as issue notice to insurance Company to produce policy, etc. to ascertain whether in fact the involved vehicle was insured with the said company or not. Therefore in absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the findings recorded by me learned Member of the MACT cannot be said to be illegal and, therefore, would brook no interference.