1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7263 OF 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Versus Sushilabai w/o Kashinath Deshmukh and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.Y. Patil, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. V.T. Chaudhary, advocate for respondent No.6 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition takes exception to the order passed below Exh. 58 in M.A.C.P. No. 56 of 2008 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon dated 3.4.2008. 2 The point which is raised in this petition is that whether the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalgaon has justified in permitting the original applicant to convert proceeding from Section 163-A to 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which changes entire nature of the proceeding. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed the above point and submitted that the learned Member M.A.C.T. is not justified in permitting the original proceeding form making amendment specially when the proceeding reached up to the stage of judgment, and therefore, learned counsel would submit that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 The counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition by submitting that since in the interest of justice, the court below has rightly allowed the claimant to amend the application under Section 163-A to Section 166 of the M.V. Act and therefore, no interference is warranted. Learned counsel further submitted that the due to subsequent events occurred after filing this petition, the petition has become infructuous because the said Act has suffered amendment. The application was amended and the same was treated under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and the learned M.A.C.T. has adjudicated the said application thereafter. 4 After hearing counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the judgment and order of the MACT, I am of the view that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, no interference is warranted in the writ jurisdiction. In para 9 the Tribunal has noted that there is no specific provision to convert the application from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the M.V. Act. However, on the amendment to convert 3 the said application from Section 163-A to Section 166 would not change the nature of claim and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents as the applicants have proved their case on their own footing. Ultimately, the MACT Jalgaon allowed the application of the respondents herein by imposing costs of Rs.250/-. 5 It is relevant to mention here that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial in nature and the Act indisputably is in the nature of social welfare legislation. In this background, the Tribunal has taken a correct view in the matter and has allowed the conversion of application from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 6 In the result, there is no error committed by the lower court in passing the impugned order. No interference is called out. Writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/