Thus, the said judgment of this Court proceeded on the basis that the vehicle in question which met with the accident was number a taxi.
The said judgment also recorded the fact that numberody had appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and the Court was informed by the learned Cousel for the appellant that there was numberevidence on record to show that the vehicle in question was a taxi.
This appeal was earlier allowed by a judgment and order of this Court dated August 5, 2003, reported in Jameskutty Jacob v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
P. Singh, J. Page 2604 We have heard the learned Cousel for the parties.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated August 5, 2003.
The respondent Insurance Company thereafter filed an Interlocutory Application for setting aside this Courts order dated August 5, 2003 and for hearing the matter afresh, explaining the reasons why its companynsel companyld number appear in the Court on the date the matter was listed for hearing.
This Court, by order dated March 15, 2004, allowed the Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent Insurance Company and restored the appeal to its original number.
