1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1266 OF 2009 Balkrishna Murlidhar Joshi, Age-51 years, Occu-Service, R/o.New Shreya Nagar, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Murlidhar S/o.Kisan Waghale, Age-36 years, Occu-Collie R/o.Silkmill Colony, Railway Station, Aurangabad. 2. Balu S/o.Baburao Jagdale, Age-26 years, Occu-Driver, R/o.H.No.5-17-128, Itkheda, Dist. Aurangabad 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, Branch Office at Adalat Road, Near LIC Office, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, with Mr.A.G.Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.S.R.Pande, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/08/2009 2 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner original respondent no.2 in M.A.C.P. Claim no.307/2008 has challenged the order passed below Exh.29 dated 03/02/2009 by which it was prayed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to refer the claimant petitioner in the M.A.C.P. Claim for his re-examination to bring on record the actual percentage of dis-ability. This application was moved by the 2 nd respondent when the original claimant has filed an application for no fault liability u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act. 2. During the course of submissions across the bar, it was brought to the notice of this Court that after the original claimant met with an accident on 03/03/2008, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Aurangabad locally known as “Ghati” and he was treated there. This fact came to the knowledge of 2nd respondent in the criminal case filed in the Court of Magistrate u/s. 337, 279 of The Indian Penal Code. As against this, alongwith the petition filed for compensation before The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the claimant injured has submitted his dis-ability certificate issued by the private medical practitioner dated 10/11/2008 which certificate was issued after the gap of 8 months after the injured was initially treated in the Government Hospital at Aurangabad. The papers of the treatment provided to the victim claimant immediately after his accident were not brought on record in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal filed by the claimant victim before the Motor Accident Claim 3 Tribunal, Aurangabad. 3. At this juncture, after hearing the submissions of learned advocate for petitioner across the bar, he seeks liberty to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move appropriate application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to produce the papers of medical treatment provided to the claimant injured immediately after the accident when he was admitted in the Government Hospital known as “Ghati” at Aurangabad. Leave granted. With this leave and liberty, the writ petition is withdrawn, hence stands disposed of as withdrawn with leave and liberty to move the appropriate application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad with all the relevant papers of medical treatment provided to the victim claimant. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 4. After this order was passed, on hearing the submissions across the bar by all the respective parties, it is hereby clarified that this application to be submitted before the application u/s. 140 will be decided in accordance with law and while deciding the application u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act, the medical papers produced by the 2 nd respondent who is petitioner in this writ petition also to be considered. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp1266-09