IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.408 of 2003 1. DINESH RAJAK, son of Debki Rajak, 2. ARUN DEVI ALIAS ARUNA DEVI, wife of Dinesh Rajak, Both are the residents of village – Mashadpur, P.S. – Barauni (Refinery), District – Begusarai. ----------------------- Petitioners/Appellants. Versus 1. M/S RELIABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT, Machawatala, P.O. and District – Bankura (Partners – Vijay Pratap Singh, Binod Kumar Rai and Manoj Kumar Rai – 5/H/3, Nafar Koley Road, Kolkata – 15(Owner). 2. Surendra Prasad, son of B. Prasad, Indian Oil Corporation (Dgp – 1, Bwn), village and Post and Police Station – Durgapur, District – Bardwan, (West Bengal) (Driver). 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Kolkata – 13, represented through the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited. Branch Office – Begusarai, District – Begusarai. ------------------- Opposite parties/Respondents. ----------- 09. 09.07.2010 None appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants on repeated calls. Learned counsel for the respondent who appeared in first session of the day also, but, due to non-appearance of the appellants, the matter was adjourned for the second session. But again situation remain same, there is none to prosecute this appeal, however, respondent is represented through the counsel. It appears from the impugned order dated 23.07.2003 passed in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 7/2003 by the tribunal at Begusarai, that in claim application under Section 166 of the Act, one petition was filed on 05.04.2003 seeking ad interim compensation under section 140 of the Act, which was denied to the appellant by a detailed 2 order mainly on the ground of none production of post mortem examination report of the deceased besides other connecting documents showing injury etc. It was not a case of instant death rather as it appears from the impugned order, accident is said to have been taken place on 17.07.2001, as stated after some treatment and subsequently return of the victim on 27.07.2001 at his home. Learned counsel representing the insurer of the vehicles said to have been involved drew my attention towards the provision as contemplated in Rule 246 of the M.V. Rules, which requires besides other documents post mortem examination report of the deceased also for allowing the claim made under section 140 of the Act. In spite of the submissions made above by learned counsel for the respondent which also stands substantiated from the record. I find myself unable to dispose of this appeal on merit in absence of the appellant but, at the same time, keeping in mind, this appeal is pending in admission for the last seven years and there is none even to make the court aware about present status of original claim application, which also if pending, might have travelled from equal number of years. Assuming that the case before the court below may be pending, this appeal is hereby dismissed for non- prosecution. Simultaneously, court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the original claim application and dispose it 3 of, if it is pending, preferably within six months on receipt of the copy of this order or communication by any means. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)