( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta and office at Jalgaon, Divisional Office at Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Smt. Rekha Rohidas Patil 2. Kum. Deviji Rohidas Patil 3. Parab Rohidas Patil 4. Ku. Monika Rohidas Patil No. 2 to 4 are minors under the guardianship of respondent No. 1 – Mother. 5. Butan Barku Patil 6. Dhanubai Butan Patil, All respondents No.1 to 6 are residents of Untawad, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Patil, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for the respondents. ..... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2001 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton ( 2 ) Street, Calcutta and office at Jalgaon, Divisional Office at Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Smt. Nilabai Shantaram Patil 2. Ku. Vijaya Shantaram Patil 3. Naresh Shantaram Patil 4. Dinesh Shantaram Patil, Respondents No. 2 and 3 are original claimants No. 2 and 3, were shown as minors in the claim petition. They have become major therefore, shown as major. Respdt. No. 4 (original claimant No. 4) is shown as minor under guardianship of mother respondent No.1. All residents of Untawad, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.Y. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent No. 6. ..... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 OF 1999 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta and office at Jalgaon, Divisional Office at Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Smt. Ashabai Bhimrao Mahajan 2. Deepak Bhimrao Mahajan 3. Snehal Bhimrao Mahajan 4. Shri Rupchand Harchand Mahajan (appeal abated as against ( 3 ) this respondent as per order dated 18-09-2009) 5. Smt. Dwarkabai Rupchand Mahajan (appeal abated as against this respondent as per order 29-06-2009) All residents of Untawad, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. 6. Harpalsing Charansing Sahota, R/o 72, Municipal Staff Quarters, Narola Road, in front of Vijay Mills, Ahmedabad. 7. The United India Insurance Co., Divisional Office No. 3, Union Co-op. Insurance Building, Near Navdip Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. 8. Ramdas Dhanji Patil, R/o Untawad, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 9. Shri Liladhar Gangaram Patil R/o as above. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.C. Sant, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, advocate for respondent No. 6. Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for respondent No. 7. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondents No. 8. ..... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta and office at Jalgaon, Divisional Office at Aurangabad. APPELLANT ( 4 ) VERSUS 1. Smt. Hirabai Rajendra Patil 2. Sanyogita Rajendra Patil 3. Laxmikant Rajendra Patil 4. Ramakant Rajendra Patil [Respondent No. 2 is now major and respondents No. 3 and 4 are minors through their mother – respondent No. 1] 5. Sindhubai Ramdas Patil All respondents are residents of Untawad, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Harpalsingh Charansingh Sahota, R/o 72, Municipal Staff Quarters, Narola Road, Opp. Vijay Mills, Ahmedabad (Gujarat State) 7. The United India Insurance Co., Divisional Office, Union Co-op. Insurance Building, Near Navdeep Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 8. Ramdas s/o Dhanaji Patil, R/o Untawad, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. 9. Liladhar Gangadhar Patil, R/o Untawad, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.Y. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for respondent No. 7. ..... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 197 OF 2002 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton ( 5 ) Street, Calcutta and office at Jalgaon, Divisional Office at Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Smt. Shakuntala Pralhad Patil 2. Anil Pralhad Patil 3. Sharad Pralhad Patil 4. Kishore Pralhad Patil All respondents No. 1 to 4 are residents of Untawad, Post Dongaon, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. 5. Harpalsing Charansing Sadhuna, R/o Ahemedabad (Gujarat) 6. Liladhar Gangaram Patil, R/o Untawad, Post. Dongaon, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Ramdas Dhanaji Patil, R/o Untawad, Post. Dongaon, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 8. United India Insurance Co., Jalgaon Office, Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel and Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent No. 8. ..... [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [DATE : 29th March, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) 2. Admit first appeal No. 2/2010. Learned counsel for respective parties waive service in the appeal. Heard finally with other first appeals arising out of same accident. 3. The short question that has been posed by the appellant – National Insurance Company is, since the accident was head-on-collision between the truck bearing registration No. GRX-5193 and the jeep vehicle bearing registration No. MH-19/C-768, the responsibility to meet the claim should have been fastened in equal proportion as against the truck owner/truck driver and the Insurance Company i.e. United India Insurance Company. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, to impress about his grievance, read the Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 3/1993 wherein the claimants have alleged the accident to be head-on-collision. 5. Before the learned Judge of the M.A.C. Tribunal, driver of either the jeep vehicle or the truck were not examined. The owner of the truck was not ( 7 ) examined. Evidence of Jagdish, a eye witness indicts the jeep driver elaborating that it was jeep driver who over-speed his vehicle and dashed against the truck from its cleaner’s side (left side), resultantly, five persons lost their precious life. Jagdish also stated that he has also suffered and was in hospital for 5-6 days. 6. It is a matter of record, none of the claimants could be said to have witnessed the incident. The contentions in the petition of head-on-collision, appear to be posed on some hearsay evidence and consequently, lose its significance. The chargesheet though is filed against the truck driver or the jeep driver, but that by itself will not translate into the fixing liability and particularly, in terms of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The observations of the learned Judge in exonerating the truck owner/truck driver and its Insurance Company, in the set of above facts, cannot be said to be contrary to the record. The observations are ( 8 ) in tune with the evidence adduced. The respective first appeals lack merit. Dismissed. No costs. 8. In view of dismissal of the first appeals, all the civil applications filed therein stand disposed of accordingly. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE NPJ/fa2-2010-group