Judgment This appeal takes exception to the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.544 of 2002, dated 25th January, 2010, by the learned District Judge -6, Aurangabad. By the judgment and award dated 25th January, 2010, M.A.C. Petition was filed by the present appellant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. Admit. 4. By consent of parties, heard finally. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar and it is not in dispute that in the afternoon of 9th June, 2002, the appellant / claimant, who was traveling on his Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle and was going towards Padampura, Aurangabad, near Baba Petrol Pump and Maruti Service Station Garage, one Hero Honda motorcycle came from Railway Station towards "Sai Service Garage", in high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle driven by the claimant, resulted in an accident, in which the appellant / claimant sustained injuries to his leg. He was allegedly admitted in "Patwardhan Hospital", Aurangabad on 9th June, 2002 and was discharged on 13th June, 2002. Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he was unable to walk properly and sustained physical disabilities. Because of the physical disabilities, he was unable to run his business properly as he claimed to be a Contractor. 6. It is stated that at the time of alleged incident / accident, he was 50 years old and he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-from the owner of the motorcycle, the respondent No.1 herein, on whose motorcycle he alone was traveling at the time of incident / accident. Said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 -Insurance Company. It appears that the respondent No.1 (owner of the vehicle) remained absent before the Court below. The respondent No.2 -Insurance Company, in the writ petition, questioned the legality of the compensation claimed by the appellant / claimant on the ground that admittedly as per the claim set out by the appellant / claimant, he was not at fault at the time of incident / accident, but the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle, who was owner of said motorcycle. So also, the Insurance Company of that owner / occupier of the Hero Honda motorcycle was not made party to the motor accident claim. So also, the Insurance Company of that owner / occupier of the Hero Honda motorcycle was not made party to the motor accident claim. Perusal of the judgment of the lower Court shows that initially the claim was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. During pendency of said M.A.C. Petition, an application was moved at Exh. 21 seeking leave to convert said application from Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act into a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This amendment application was allowed on 14th December, 2007, but no amendment was carried out. In the result, the claim was not converted into under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and to be treated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. In this backdrop, heard learned counsel for the appellant followed by the submissions of the learned Advocate for respondent No.2. Like in the lower Court, before this Court also, respondent No.1 remained absent, though duly served. 8. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant / claimant fairly conceded that the claim of the appellant was dismissed by the Court below mainly on two grounds; firstly, even though the amendment was sought for which application (Exh.21) came to be allowed, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not converted into under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly; the owner and driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle which gave dash to the motorcycle driven by the appellant / claimant on 9th June, 2002 and Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured, were not joined as party -respondents before the Court below; and lastly, alleged income of the appellant / claimant was Rs. 5,000/-per month. Hence, his claim cannot be considered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the structural formula given under schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant fairly accepted this proposition and requested the Court that he may be allowed to make party to owner and driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle, the offending vehicle which gave dash to the motorcycle driven by the appellant / claimant and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured, and thereafter, the claim to be decided. Considering this aspect, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 -Insurance Company opposed to remand the matter back to the Court below on the ground that the accident took place in the year 2002. He further submitted that after the matter remanded back to the trial Court and after appearance of the owner / occupier of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company in the trial Court, it will take further time and the claimant will claim the interest during this period also, which certainly would cause prejudice to his Insurance Company, and on this ground, prayer to remand the matter to the lower Court be not accepted. 9. Considering above submissions across the bar, fact is clear that the owner and occupier of the vehicle Hero Honda motorcycle and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured were admittedly not arrayed / impleaded as party / respondents to the petition. So also, it is crystal clear that even though the application for amendment was allowed, but amendment was not carried out. In the circumstances, it is necessary to accept the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant / claimant to allow him to implead owner/occupier of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured to be impleaded as party / respondents and then to decide the claim afresh. At the same time, learned counsel for the appellant / claimant shown his willingness to give an undertaking to this Court that after the owner / occupier of the offending Hero Honda motorcycle and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured impleaded as party / respondents and if held responsible to pay the compensation to the appellant / claimant, then he will not claim interest for the period 2002 till disposal of this appeal. This assurance to give undertaking is accepted. In the light of this assurance, the judgment and order impugned is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction that on receipt of Writ of this Court before the Court below, the application to be moved by the appellant / claimant to join the owner and occupier of Hero Honda motorcycle of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured within a period of four weeks. After they impleaded as party / respondents to the petition, then the petition to be disposed of within a period of six months after appearance of the newly added respondents and then to decide the M.A.C. Petition in accordance with law. The learned M.A.C.T. Tribunal is directed, while fixing / calculating the compensation, the owner / occupier of the Hero Honda motorcycle so also the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay the interest from the date of accident till the date of decision of this appeal. With this clarification, appeal stands partly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 1st February, 2012. 10. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.