IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1665 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011 Amrik Singh and others ....Appellants versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1666 of 1992 (O&M) Amrik Singh and others ....Appellants versus Gurcharan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) There is no representation for the appellants in both the cases. Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is present and ready. The appellants are the owner and driver of the vehicle and both the cases have been admitted even in the absence of the counsel. I do not FAO No.1665 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - find it worthwhile to keep the case pending any longer. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed in default. The amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and the claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the same in satisfaction of the award, if the same has not already been satisfied either in part or full and if the amount has not already been withdrawn. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.01.2011 sanjeev