1 wp9508-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9508 OF 2010 Sattappa Rama Powar & Ors .. Petitioners versus Smt.Shubhangi @ Namrata Mrunal Powar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the petitioners. Mr.Shrikant H. Yadav for respondent No.1. Mr.H.G.Misar for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th August 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed on 13th October 2010 rejecting an application which is preferred by the petitioners (Exhibit 56). That application prayed for impleadment of the petitioners as parties to the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.161 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. 2 There is no dispute that the said claim petition was filed by one 2 wp9508-10.sxw Shubhangi @ Namrata Mrunal Powar stating that her husband Dr.Mrunal who was a Medical Officer, died in a motor accident. She is his wife. Her in-laws prayed for being impleaded as parties to this application and that is how the impugned order has been passed. This matter was placed before me on more than one occasion. I indicated to both sides that this being a claim arising out of motor accident in which, unfortunately, the husband of the original applicant died, he was a young person serving as a Medical Officer. Therefore, the insurance company should take a sympathetic view of the matter and agree to compensate the family. As far as the compensation amount is concerned, the moment it is deposited, it shall be disbursed in terms of the shares of the petitioners who are brother and sister of the original applicants, parents of the deceased. Thus, the consequential orders of apportionment and disbursement can then be passed by the Tribunal, once the principally the parties agree for mutual settlement. 3 After taking instructions, the counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-claimant states that before the trial Court the Insurance Company has made an offer and it is ready and willing to put an end to the proceedings amicably. That offer is being considered by the 3 wp9508-10.sxw applicant-respondent No.1 before me. 4 In my view, this writ petition can be disposed off with a direction that the petitioners before me shall be impleaded as parties to the original claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal to endeavour and make an attempt to see that the matter is amicably settled as all parties agreed before me in principle that the offer made by the Insurance Company in the trial Court is reasonable and acceptable to all of them. Even the 1st respondent-original applicant is ready and willing that the disbursement should be made in terms of the shares of the parents and the brother and sister of the deceased. In other words, she is ready and willing to share the compensation amount which will be offered by the Insurance Company in accordance with law. 5 The writ petition is, therefore, allowed by setting aside the impugned order and impleading both brother and sister, viz.,Vyankatesh Sattapa Powar and Kum.Mrunalini Sattappa Powar, respectively, as opponents to the claim petition. The Tribunal is thereafter directed to take steps so that the dispute can be amicably 4 wp9508-10.sxw resolved in between the Insurance Company and the family members of the deceased. 6 If at all, there is no settlement possible, the petitioners should be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses which are examined by the Insurance Company. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)