IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 333 and 335 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4th January, 2011 __________________________________________________________ FAO Nos. 333 & 335 of 2010 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. ….Appellant. Versus Smt. Lipo & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Adovcate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as the same arise out of the same accident. 2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba allowing a sum of `50,000/- to the claimant-respondents under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is undisputed before me that now the final award has also been passed by the learned Tribunal. In these 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 circumstances, this application has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that dismissal of this appeal would have an important bearing on the appeal which is being preferred by the Insurance Company against the final award. This apprehension is unfounded. It will be open to the Insurance Company to urge all grounds which have been taken herein in any appeal which may be preferred against the final award and decision of this appeal shall have no material bearing on such challenge being made. This finding would be equally applicable to whatever challenge the Insurance Company may make against the rejection of application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. January 04, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3