[220] Smt. Kamle Karambir a Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-6118 Date of De Kamlesh and others versus mbir and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA None for the appellants. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for re Insurance Company **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 29.04.2019, the following o “ Though a request for an adj counsel appearing for the appe appearing for respondent no.3, h Supreme Court in United India I Arora and others 2013 (3) ACC 9 licence of the driver of the vehicle company is not liable to pay an impugned Award does not require t He further submits that with vehicle, i.e. respondent no. 2 herei 23.09.2014, in any case the appea the driver alone would be purposele For learned counsel for judgment cited by Mr. Jain, as als what he has contended with rega appeal against the owner of th 04.12.2019.” T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 6118-2012 (O&M) of Decision : 23.04.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN for respondent No.3- wing order was passed:- n adjournment has been made by learned appellants, Mr. Jain, learned counsel .3, has relied upon a judgment of the ia Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sujata C 918, to submit that where the driving icle was found to be fake, the insurance y any compensation and therefore, the ire to be interfered with. with the appeal against the owner of the erein, already having been dismissed on peal against the insurance company and oseless. for the appellants to distinguish the s also to address arguments, in terms of regard to the effect of dismissal of the f the vehicle in issue, adjourned to ned nsel the jata ving nce the f the on and the s of the to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.24 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-6118-2012 (O&M) -2- [2] Thereafter, on 06.02.2024, the following order was passed:- “ Arguments heard in part. When faced with the situation that appeal against the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2 has already been dismissed, then how amount of compensation can be enhanced, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants seeks some time to address arguments. Adjourned to 08.04.02024.” [3] Today, none has come present on behalf of the appellants. [4] Dismissed for non prosecution. [5] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 23.04.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.24 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document