1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7. FA/2946/2008 WITH FA/1504/2008 WITH FA/1505/2008 WITH FA/1506/2008 WITH FA/1507/2008 WITH FA/1508/2008 WITH FA/1509/2008 WITH FA/1510/2008 With CA/11946/2008 In FA/2946/2008 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.D.Kaldate, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. V.N.Upadhye, Adv., for respondent no.4. Mr.S.P.Adgaonkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Mr. Wajed Khan, Adv., for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 13th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard the Counsel representing respective parties and the appellant. 2 2. On 24.8.1997, in an accident between jeep and Bus, which was head on collision, there were several casualties, giving rise to different claim petitions. 3. The point involved in the present appeals is about the liability of appellant Dilawar Janimiya Karpurde as he ponders to the record, stating that the accident is dt.24.8.1987 while the transfer of the vehicle was dt.17.5.1997 before the requisite registering authority at Hyderabad, South zone. 4. In MACP No.250/2003, this objection, as was raised by the present appellant Dilawar, was entertained by the learned Judge. Consequent thereupon, the appellant Dilawar was exonerated, as the petition was dismissed against him, being respondent no.4 in the said proceedings. I am informed, there is no challenge to the observation of the learned Judge in M.A.C.P. No.250/2003 dt.22nd Oct.,2008. 5. In the group of appeals, identical point is raised by the appellant Dilawar, as to his liability being fixed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, when he was not owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Since there is already a positive finding in favour of appellant Dilawar, arising out of the same 3 accident, in one of the matter, there cannot be a contrary finding to the same as the learned Member had the occasion to broach the record and reach to the finding. The finding, in the situation, cannot be said to be of a cavalier nature. The fact remains, since there is already order in favour of the appellant Dilawar, the same scale will have to be applied in other petitions, which is subject matter of present challenge. 6. The appeals are disposed of only on the short point, without touching to the compensation, multiplier applied and the respective liabilities. Consequently, the order: ORDER The First Appeals are allowed. Appellant Dilawar Janimiya Karpurde is exonerated in all the claim petitions, subject of present appeals. The other details in the respective Motor Accident Claim Petitions remain unaltered. No costs. Respective Civil Applications disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/fa2946-08gr