ORDER :- (Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

(1) It is 12.15 p.m.  Applicant/appellant is absent.  It is observed on 02/09/2011 that

one Mr. B. T. Tonpe has signed the ‘Vakalatnama’ on behalf of the insurance company.  He has also signed the delay condonation application and the affidavit.  Even though it is stated that he is an authorized officer, his authorization on behalf of the insurance company has not been produced on the record, and therefore, we are unable to understand as to whether he is really an authorized officer on behalf of the insurance company or not.  Secondly, ‘Vakalatnama’ shows that one ‘RKS Associate’ has been appointed as an advocate to conduct the matter before the State Commission on behalf of the insurance company.  However, it is not known as to whether ‘RKS Associate’ is a partnership firm, company and/or a proprietary professional concern.  Apart from that today Adv. Darshan Modi is present.  He pointed out that ‘RKS Associate’ is a proprietary concern of Adv. Rakesh K. Singh.  Adv. Modi further submitted that there is no signature of Adv. Rakesh K. Singh on the ‘Vakalatnama’.  Adv. Darshan Modi submitted that signature on the ‘Vakalatnama’ is of Adv. Dalraj M. Thakur.  In the present case, insurance company has not given ‘Vakalatnama’ to Adv. Dalraj M. Thakur.  Adv. Dalraj M. Thakur may be working under Adv. Rakesh K. Singh or he may be an independent lawyer.  We do no know.  Today, none is present for the applicant/appellant.  We do not whether the appellant has deposited the cost of `10,000/- in Legal Aid Fund of the Commission retuned by the respondent to them.  We, therefore, dismiss the misc.application in default.  In the result, the appeal does not survive for consideration.