IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1096 OF 2010 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.262 OF 2005 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6049 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT Appeal No.1096 of 2010 =================================================== 1. Chandra Kanti Gupta w/o late Jitendra Kumar Gupta 2. Bikrant Kumar 3. Vishal Kumar 4. Smt. Mamta Kumari 5. Sweta Kumar, all resident of village Murgiachak, P.O.- Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District Munger . … Appellants Versus 1. Sri Susant Kumar s/o Jai Nandan Prasad @ J.N. Prasad, r/o Mohalla – Madhopur, P.O.- Basudeopur, P.S. Kotwali, Munger 2. The Manager Policy No.98/6700241, Munger Branch 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Munger at Bara Bazar, Munger 4. Shambhu Nath Choudhary @ Jaiswal s/o Bhagwat, r/o Mohalla – Madhopur, P.O.- Basudeopur, P.S. Kotwali, Munger ………. Respondents ==================================== APPEARANCE For the appellants: Mr. Krishna Mohan Keshri Singh, Advocate None for the Respondents =================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 19/7/2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the 2 Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 12th January 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No.262 of 2005. The Miscellaneous Appeal arose from a claim for compensation made by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. On 9th January 1999, the deceased met with an accident and suffered fracture of a leg. While undergoing treatment for fracture on 1st February 1999 in the clinic of the concerned doctor, he suffered a heart-attack and died on the spot. The appellants claimed that the death of the deceased was on account of the accident he had met on 9th January 1999. Accordingly, they made claim for compensation. Their claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that the deceased had died of heart-attack and not of the accident. The said finding of the Tribunal was challenged in the above Miscellaneous Appeal No.262 of 2005. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Tribunal and has rejected the claim of the appellants for additional compensation on account of accidental death of the deceased. 3 Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The moot question before us is whether the present Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in the above Miscellaneous Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Krishna Mohan Keshri Singh has appeared for the appellants. He has relied upon section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”). He has submitted that the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the claims under the Act of 1988. Therefore, the Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable. In support of his argument learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the matter of National Insurance Comp. Ltd. vs. Ram Prasad Kushwaha & Ors.( 2008 (2) BLJ 256). The said judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal arising 4 from a Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under section 173 of the Act of 1988. Be it noted that the question of maintainability of the appeal was not an issue there. Besides the said Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the amendment to section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid judgment is not an authority on the issue whether the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not. We are afraid, we are not able to accept the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants. Section 169 of the Act of 1988 talks about the procedure for conducting claims before the Tribunal. The Appeal against the order of the Tribunal shall lie under section 173 of the Act of 1988. The said section 173 provides for appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court is vested with the power of Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure inserted by the Act 104 of 1976 and substituted by the Act 22 of 2002, specifically bars an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court from an order of the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding 5 anything contained in the Letters Patent. Thus, irrespective of the specific provisions contained in the Letters Patent, an appeal to the Division Bench shall not lie against the order of the learned Single Judge made in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that irrespective of its merit, the present Letters Patent Appeal arising from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under section 173 of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable. The Appeal is dismissed in limine on the aforesaid ground alone. Interim Application no.6049 of 2010 stands disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( S. K. Katriar, J.)