RAMAPRASADA RAO C. J.

In this appeal no steps having been taken for impleading the legal representatives of the second respondent, and as the second respondent is dead long before, learned counsel for the appellant frankly admits that he is unable to prosecute the appeal as against the second respondent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as against the second respondent for non-prosecution. The first respondent is the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company taken over, after nationalisation, by the United India Fire and General Insurance Company. The material point which was considered by the learned judge, who negatived the objection of the owner of the taxi which was involved in the accident, revolved round a question of fact. It is common ground that at or about the time of the accident in which the appellant's taxi was involved, it was being driven by a person who was a learner and did not have an effective licence which alone would enable the person to drive a motor vehicle independently on a public-road. The learned judge paid particular attention to this aspect and accepted the contention of the insurance company that R. W. 1 who was driving the vehicle at the time of