IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 272 of 2011 Decided on: 27.07.2011 The New India Assurance Company …Appellant. Versus Kamla @ Kalawati & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) CMP (M) No. 958 of 2011 in FAO No. 272 of 2011 This application is for condonation of delay of four years, ten months and four days in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal is directed against the interim award dated 09.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), 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 this is an 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- appealable award. 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 03.09.2007 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 by the Insurance Company. This Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company exonerated it 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. This application was dismissed on the ground that the award under Section 140 of the Act had not been challenged and had become final. Thereafter, this appeal has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay. 3. There is no merit in the application 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 judgments which had already been -: 3 :- delivered and therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the application is rejected. 4. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 27, 2011 (rajni)