IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1419 of 2009 1.PRATIMA DEVI @ PERMILA DEVI, W/O LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL. NAUSARAT KHANI, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR. 2.AJAY PRASAD SINGH, S/O YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL. NAUSARAT KHANI, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR 3.RANJEET KUMAR, S/O YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL. NAUSARAT KHANI, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR 4.AMIT KUMAR SINGH, S/O YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL. NAUSARAT KHANI, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR. ………..Appellants/Claimants Versus 1.SRI DINESH JHA, S/O LATE NAND KISHORE JHA, R/O KHARAJPUR, P.O. KHARAJPUR, P.S. DARBHANGA, DISTT- DARBHANGA. 2.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. EXHIBITION ROAD , PATNA. 3.SRI MANGAL KUMAR, S/O SRI KISHOR KUMAR R/O SINUAR GOPAL PUR, P.S. SADAR BAHADUR PUR, DISTT- DARBHANGA. …………Respondents/Respondents ******** For the Appellant : Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv. For the Respondent No.1: Shri Durga Nand Jha, Adv. ******** 10/- 04-04-2011 The claim of the appellants in this present Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the order of learned Single Judge in M.A. 449 of 1999 dated 12.01.2009. The appellant claimant is the wife of the deceased person by name Late Yogendra Prasad Singh, who got seriously injured in a road accident on 24.08.1986. It is also contended that he has filed a case for compensation in Claim Case No. 43/1987 claming compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- for the injuries sustained during the accident, but, however, on that claim, the court below has granted only 15,000/-. But, during the course of arguments, it has also been stated that 2 during the pendency of the said case before the lower court, the injured had died and the present petitioner has been brought on record as the legal representative. M.A. 449 of 1999 has been filed by the present appellant in the High Court questioning the order passed by the Lower Court, but learned Single Judge has dismissed the M.A. No. 449/1999 by order dated 12.01.2009 confirming the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- granted by the Lower Court. As the vehicle in question has no insurance policy, counsel for the appellant sought a settlement in the matter with the owner of the vehicle as the matter is pending since long. Accordingly, the counsel appearing on behalf of the owner has been asked to negotiate with the owner for payment of reasonable amount to the appellant herein taking note of the fact that the husband died due to injuries that occurred in a road accident. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner contended that the owner has no source of livelihood and he could obtain a demand draft of Rs. 30,000/- bearing DD No. 330414 dated 02.04.2011 drawn in favour of the appellant herein. The demand draft has been paid to the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in full and final 3 settlement of the claim made by the late husband of the present appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has received Demand Draft of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) in full and final payment of the claim. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1419 of 2009 is disposed of. Rajeev/Praveen (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)