1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2007 Sheetal Baburoa Patil and Anr. - APPELLANTS VERSUS Vikas Ramdas Patil and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VY Patil,Advocate for Appellants; Mr.AB Gatne, Advocate for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Patil for the appellant/original claimant extensively. The appeal is finally heard at admission stage. The only question to be formulated is, whether learned Chairman, MACT, Jalgaon, justifiably dismissed the Claim Petition by order dated 17th April, 2007 ? My finding to this issue is - Yes for the following reasons. 2 2) It is rather unfortunate for the claimant that before the learned Chairman in MACP No.669/1998, owner of the vehicle - Hazi Mohammad was arrayed and deleted. Consequently, no summons were issued against him. The United India Insurance Company could not be fastened with the liability as the Insurance Cover note or the document purporting to be related to insurance was blurred ineligible and was simply marked article by the learned Chairman. The misery for the appellant/claimant does not stop here. In the present appeal, the driver stood dismissed by order dated 9.4.2009. Then remains only the appeal against United India Insurance Company and parents of the deceased. Again Appeal against Mahadu Sampat Patil, father of the deceased, was dismissed by order dated 9.4.2009. These two aspects totally misbrand the contention of the petitioner for eligibility to stake claim in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The stand that the deceased was a cleaner, could not be accelerated logically or legally. 3 In the result, no fault can be seen with the order under challenge. First Appeal with CA dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa115.07