jpc wp8945-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8945 OF 2010 Bajirao Shantaram Shinde and others ... Petitioners Versus Kandahar Thudding Kassi and others ... Respondents Mr. Pralhad D. Paranjape for the petitioners Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by KMC Legal Venture for Respondent no.2 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 21st November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 2nd March, 2010 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. By the said order the review application being Misc. M.A.C. Application No.12 of 2008 came to be rejected. 2. The said review application was filed by the petitioners on the ground that though the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation in respect of the pillion rider also but absolved the insurance company from liability on the ground that the pillion rider was not covered by the policy. The petitioners, in the said review jpc wp8945-10.sxw 2 application, sought to rely upon the Circular dated 16th November, 2009, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority which is in respect of the liability of the Insurance company in respect of the occupant of private car and pillion rider of two wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the said circular the insurance company would be liable in respect of the pillion rider also. The review was filed on the ground that the said circular was not available to the petitioner at the time when the complaint was heard by the tribunal. In so far as the Mis. Civil Application is concerned the same has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed after the period prescribed in the Limitation Act is over and there are no reasons for the delay. 4. Today, when the above petition is called for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri Paranjape, on instructions of the petitioners, states that he would like to withdraw the application for review filed in the tribunal as well as above petition to file a substantive Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24th jpc wp8945-10.sxw 3 January, 2008. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company states that he has no objection to the withdrawal of review application as well as the above writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner desires to file a substantive Appeal. 5. If an Appeal is filed by the petitioner, the concerned court would take into consideration that the petitioner was prosecuting the review petition from 18th April, 2008 and in the event the question of delay arises, the said fact would be taken into consideration by the tribunal, as ultimately, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. 6. The Review Application and the above petition are accordingly allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)