JUDGMENT AND ORDER : B.K. Sharma, J. I have heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel, representing the respondents No. 1 and 2. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is the judgment and award dated 30.8.2007 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati passed in MAC Case No. 2033/2003. By the said judgment and award, the respondents have been awarded an amount of Rs. 2,88,500/- with the rider that the amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The petitioner i.e. United Insurance Company Limited was to make the payment within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. 3. It will be pertinent to mention here that although the judgment and award was passed on 30.8.2005, but the writ petition was filed after two years thereafter on 19.8.2009. The ground, on which the writ petition has been filed are as follows: (1) In the claim petition, there was no mention of the type of the vehicle involved in the accident. (2) Although initially the claimants identified them as brothers of the deceased, but later on, they projected themselves as sons of the deceased. 4. To buttress the above grounds, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the documents available on record submits that as per the police report, the deceased was knocked down by an unknown Truck, but on the other hand, the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-09-1693 is a Bus. He further submits that the learned Tribunal solely on the basis of an application filed by the claimants allowed their claim that they are in fact sons of the deceased and not brothers. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the above grounds cannot be said to be extra-ordinary grounds, which the petitioner could not have agitated by preferring the statutory appeal. He further submits that the writ petition having been filed merely two years after the impugned judgment and award, the same is not maintainable. 6. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the above grounds cannot be said to be extra-ordinary grounds, which the petitioner could not have agitated by preferring the statutory appeal. He further submits that the writ petition having been filed merely two years after the impugned judgment and award, the same is not maintainable. 6. While it is true that in the application filed under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there was no mention of the type of the vehicle, but clearly mentioned the Registration number of the vehicle as AS-09-1693. The claim petition also narrated all the required particulars. In the written statement and so also in the additional written statement, the petitioner Insurance Company took the plea of non-mentioning of the type of the vehicle. It was contended that in absence of the same, no clear picture could be drawn by the Insurance Company. In the additional written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it was contended that the particular police station vide its report dated 3.6.2000 conveyed that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown Truck coming from Barpeta side. However, the fact of the matter is that in the claim petition, the claimant clearly identified the vehicle as bearing Registration No. AS-09-1693. Once it is established that the vehicle was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company, the type of the vehicle was very much known to it. 7. As regards the plea of the petitioner Insurance Company that the amendment towards altering the status of the claimants from brothers to sons ought not to have been allowed, on perusal of the materials on record, it is found that no objection whatsoever was raised by the Insurance Company in respect of the application filed by the claimant seeking amendment to the bona fide mistake in projecting them as brothers instead of sons. 8. Above apart, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, MACT, Guwahati reported in 2006 (1) GLT 746, normally the party aggrieved by judgment and award by MACT should pursue statutory remedy of appeal instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. While not ruling out circumstances relating to invocation of writ jurisdiction, however, the Division Bench observed that such invocation must be on the grounds which are not otherwise available to the party. While not ruling out circumstances relating to invocation of writ jurisdiction, however, the Division Bench observed that such invocation must be on the grounds which are not otherwise available to the party. It was observed that a party alleging fraud can always invoke writ jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that the claimants are responsible for playing fraud. As to what are the grounds, on which the writ petition has been filed has been noted above. It cannot be said that the said grounds could not have been agitated by the Insurance Company by invoking statutory remedy of appeal. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.