The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Nawada v. Ramprakash Harijan And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Appeal No.463 of 2014 ====================================================== The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar, Nawada. Appeal and Appellant through the Administrative Officer & Authorized Signatory, Regional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-1. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Ramprakash Harijan Son of Late Azadi Harijan 2.

Rajiya Devi Wife of Late Azadi Harijan 3.

Surya Prakash Son of Late Azadi Harijan 4.

Vina Devi Daughter of Late Azadi Harijan. All 1 to 4 are resident of At/P.O.- Makhar, P.S.- Akbarpur, Distt- Nawada.

5.

Brijbhushan Pandey Son of Late Faagu Mishra, Resident of Village - Wareb, P.S.- Akbarpur, District - Nawada.

6.

Kailash Das @ Kalo Son of Shivnandan Das, Resident of Village -Phulma, P.S.- Akbarpur, District - Nawada.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Durgesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the orders dated 25.02.2014 and 22.03.2017, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc)-IV-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nawada in M.A.C.T. Case No.03 of 2012.

Patna High Court MA No.463 of 2014 dt.06-03-2019 2/2

3. There is delay of 33 days in filing of this miscellaneous appeal. The delay is explained in I.A. No.7158 of 2015. Hence, the delay is condoned.

4. This appeal is against grant of ad interim compensation, in a case of death, under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents informs the Court that the main claim petition has itself been disposed of. Hence, the appellant would be at liberty to raise his grievance against the interlocutory order in the main appeal itself.

6. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the appellant to raise his grievance in the main appeal.

(Birendra Kumar, J) abhishek/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 08.03.2019 Transmission Date 08.03.2019