IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.501 of 2008 Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Darbhanga Branch 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 ....(Opposite Party) - Petitioner Versus 1. Pinki Devi wife of late Mohan Sah alias Mohan Sah Thatheri (Claimant no.1) – Petitioner no.1 2. Rani Kumari daughter of Late Mohan Sah alias Mohan Sah Thatheri (Claimant no.2) Petitioner no.2 Minor 3. Priyanka Kumari daughter of Late Mohan Sah alias Mohan Sah Thatheri (Claimant no.3) Petitioner no.3 Minor 4. Gauri Kumari daughter of Late Mohan Sah alias Mohan Sah Thatheri (Claimant no.4) Petitioner no.4 Minor 5. Shiv Kumar son of Late Mohan Sah alias Mohan Sah Thatheri (Claimant no.5) Petitioner no.5 Minor Minors under the guardianship of their mother Respondent no.1, all residents of Village Kanhauli Purani Bazar PO & PS Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani 6. Sunil Kumar Murarka son of Satya Narayan Resident of Village and PO Jaynagar District Madhubani at present C/o Yamuna Prasaad Singh, resident of Mohalla Kadirabad near at Bus Stand PO Lalbagh District Darbhanga.....(Opp. Party no.1) – Opposite Parties ----------- 08- 24/10/2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi for the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Prasad for opposite party no.1 (claimant no.1), Mr. Nityanand Mishra for D.R.Guardian ad litem opposite party nos. 2 to 5 (minor claimants), and Mr. Randhir Kumar for opposite party no.6. The petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 19.6.2007, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Darbhanga, in Claim Case no.73 of 2006, whereby the petitioner’s review application has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and 2 considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The claimants filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in the claim case for a direction to make interim payment under the said provisions of law. The application was allowed whereby the petitioner (the alleged Insurer) and opposite party no.6 herein (owner of the vehicle) were directed to make payment of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner filed a review application before the learned Tribunal to recall the order for payment of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that the insurance policy was not effective on the date of the accident. The application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the learned Tribunal is not vested with the power of review. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs us at the Bar that it has already handed over a sum of Rs.50,000/- to opposite party no.1 herein. In such a situation, this application is disposed of with the direction to the learned Tribunal to frame an issue whether or not the alleged insurance policy was effective at the time the accident had taken place, and the liability of the petitioner to make payment of any amount under section 140 and /or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which may be taken up at the time of disposal of the claim case. 4. This civil revision application is accordingly disposed of. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )