IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO Nos. 251 of 2011 and. 252 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.7.2011. FAO No. 251 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company. …Appellant. Versus Smt. Kalawati and others …Respondents. FAO No. 252 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company. …Appellant. Versus Smt. Kalawati and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. In both the appeals. For the Appellant: Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) CMP(M) No. 926 of 2011 & CMP(M) No. 927 of 2011 1. These applications are for condonation of delay of five years, one month and 14 days in filing both the appeals. 2. The appeals are directed against the interim award dated 21.2.2006 passed by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby the Insurance Company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. As has been held by this Court in a number of cases that this is an appealable award. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 The Insurance Company did not deem it fit to file an appeal against the award. The learned Tribunal thereafter disposed of the main petition itself on 22.12.2007 and though the Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability but it was directed that the Insurance Company should pay the amount and recover the balance amount from the owner. This final award was challenged and the Insurance Company was exonerated from even paying the amount. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for recovery of the amount already paid by it and at this stage it also wanted to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under no fault liability and that application was dismissed on the ground that the award under Section 140 of the Act had not been challenged. Thereafter, these appeals have been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay. 3. There is no merit in the applications for condonation of delay because at every stage the Insurance Company was aware that an award under Section 140 had been passed. The law laid down by this Court is clear and there are number of judgements which had already been delivered and therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the applications are rejected. 4. In view of the dismissal of the application(s) for condonation of delay, the appeals are also dismissed. No order as to costs. 21st July, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.