JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. This intra-Court appeal filed under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in MACA No.231 of 2012, whereby compensation amount of Rs.5.38 lakhs awarded by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in M.A.C. Case No.10 of 2006 has been modified and reduced to Rs.3.25 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 2. The appellants in this writ appeal were the respondents before the learned Single Judge. The appellants as claimants approached the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in M.A.C. Case No.10 of 2006 claiming compensation for death of one Prafulla Kumar Sahoo due to vehicular accident. 3. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that on 14.02.2005 at about 3.15 P.M deceased Prafulla Kumar Sahoo, while going from Barbil to Rugudi on N.H. 215 along with one Akshaya Kumar Pradhan by a motorcycle, at that point of time the offending vehicle, i.e., a Dumper bearing Registration no.OR-14K-3763, which was coming from his front side towards Barbil with a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by serving to its right side dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and the offending vehicle ran over his body causing grievous injuries. Consequently, deceased succumbed to injuries at the spot. It is stated that the deceased was then working as a Teacher in Joda East U.P. School, Joda and in his leisure time he was also teaching the local students at his house and was earning Rs.8,000/-per month. From the said income he was maintaining his family members. The claimants being the wife and daughters of the deceased filed MAC Case No.10 of 2006 before the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as two issues and, after examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, by order dated 19.12.2011 passed the award of compensation of Rs.5.38 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 16.01.2006. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as two issues and, after examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, by order dated 19.12.2011 passed the award of compensation of Rs.5.38 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 16.01.2006. Respondent no.1 National Insurance Company challenged the award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in MAC Case No. 10 of 2006 before this Court in MACA No. 231 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge, as already stated, disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 08.05.2013 by reducing the awarded amount from Rs.5.38 lakhs to Rs.3.25 lakhs, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ appeal. 4. At the outset, the consideration was made whether the intra-Court appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is maintainable or not. For better appreciation, Section-100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) is quoted below : “100-A. No further appeal in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single judge.” The aforementioned provision, which has been substituted by the CPC Amendment Act, 2002 (Section-4) with effect from 01.07.2002, in its clear and unambiguous term prohibits filing of intra-Court appeal against the original or appellate decree or order passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. This apart, the question with regard to maintainability of Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court was subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud & Ors. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725 and after discussing various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court it has been held that after introduction of Section 100-A of CPC by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent appeal is maintainable against the judgment/order/decree passed by the learned Single Judge of a High Court. 5. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725 and after discussing various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court it has been held that after introduction of Section 100-A of CPC by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent appeal is maintainable against the judgment/order/decree passed by the learned Single Judge of a High Court. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions contained in Section 100-A of the CPC read with the law laid down by this Court, this appeal is not maintainable, hence dismissed. No order as to cost.