IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.504 of 2008 Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Bhagalpur Divisional Office (Opp. Party No.2) through Sri Anjani Kumar, A.O. Cum Duly Constituted Attorney Regional Office, 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, B.C. Patel Road, Patna………….Petitioner Versus 1. Umesh Pd. Choudhary Son of Parmeshwar Choudhary…(Claimant No.1) 2. Manju Devi wife of Umesh Pd. Choudhary ….(Claimant No. 2) Both residents of village Gorganwan P.O. Sangrampur and P.S. Belhar District Banka. 3. Satya Narain Sah son of Late Bengali Resident of village Amgarhba and P.O. & P.S. Belhar District Banka…..(Opp. Party No. 1) ………Opp. Parties. ----------- 3 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 29.01.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 52 of 2006 by M.V.A.C. Tribunal, Munger rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner praying to review the order dated 08.05.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 52 of 2006 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no dispute that a petition against Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act have been filed by the opposite parties leading to institution of claim case No. 52 of 2006 before the Claim Tribunal, Munger. In the claim case summons were issued to the opposite parties and they appeared and filed written statements separately raising their objections including the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. After hearing the parties in detail, the Claim Tribunal by order dated 08.05.2007 had allowed the prayer of the claimant and directed the opposite parties to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to them. No appeal was filed against the said order by the petitioners who were opposite parties in the said claim case. However, the petitioners filed a petition on 23.01.2008 praying for review of the order dated 08.05.2007. As the said review petition was barred by limitation and therefore a condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed on the ground that since the matter was pending for legal opinion and therefore the delay might be condoned. After hearing the parties the Claim Tribunal has rejected the review petition after considering its merits and also coming to the finding that no sufficient ground had been given for condonation of delay. The Claim Tribunal has also observed in the impugned order that the petitioners (who were opposite parties) should have taken recourse to proper forum as provided in law. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. Saif (V. Nath, J.)