1. Application for condonation of delay of 217 days filed — Pursuit of appeal given up as award already paid. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Sikk) 79
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Tamang & Ors. - Respondents
MAC. App. No. 02 of 2026
Decided On : 17-09-2026
Important Points
An appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, along with related applications for condonation of delay, is dismissed as not pressed when the appellant satisfies the award and expresses no further interest in pursuing the litigation.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Claims - Condonation of delay - Appeal against award - Satisfaction of award - Appeal not pressed - Where the appellant informs the court that the amount directed to be paid by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants, and such payment is confirmed by the claimants, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not pressed (Paras 2, 3).
Facts of the case:
An insurance company filed an appeal against an award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 217 days. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted that they were no longer interested in pursuing the appeal as the awarded amount had already been paid to the claimants, which was further confirmed by the counsel for the claimants.
Findings of Court:
In view of the categorical submissions that the award has been satisfied and the appellant does not wish to pursue the matter, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Whether the appeal should be pursued given the fact that the award amount had been paid to the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: When the appellant explicitly submits that they are not interested in pursuing an appeal because the amount directed by the Tribunal has been paid to and received by the claimants, the appeal and any associated applications for condonation of delay are to be dismissed as not pressed.
Result: I.A. rejected and MAC Appeal dismissed as not pressed.
Facts of the case:
An insurance company filed an appeal against an award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 217 days. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted that they were no longer interested in pursuing the appeal as the awarded amount had already been paid to the claimants, which was further confirmed by the counsel for the claimants.
Findings of Court:
In view of the categorical submissions that the award has been satisfied and the appellant does not wish to pursue the matter, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Whether the appeal should be pursued given the fact that the award amount had been paid to the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: When the appellant explicitly submits that they are not interested in pursuing an appeal because the amount directed by the Tribunal has been paid to and received by the claimants, the appeal and any associated applications for condonation of delay are to be dismissed as not pressed.
Result: I.A. rejected and MAC Appeal dismissed as not pressed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prem Simon Chettri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nirmal Thapa, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Prem Simon Chettri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nirmal Thapa, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Applicant not interested in pursuing appeal as award amount already paid to claimants. (Para 2 )
3. Counsel confirmed payment made; appeal not pressed. (Para 2 )
4. Delay condonation application rejected; appeal dismissed as not pressed. (Para 3 )
5. May an appeal be dismissed as not pressed if the award amount is already paid?
Yes, when counsel confirms the award amount has been paid and the applicant no longer wishes to pursue the appeal, the court may dismiss it as not pressed. (Para 2 , 3 )
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. No.01/2025 which is an application seeking condonation of delay purportedly of 217 days, had been granted several opportunities to examine the application and the ground therein and make amendments, if any.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant now appears and submits that the applicant is not interested in pursuing MAC Appeal No.02/2026 as the amount directed to be paid by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the said payment has already been duly made.
3. In view of the categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, I.A. No.01/2025 is rejected. Consequently, MAC Appeal No.02/2026 is also dismissed as not pressed.
