FAO No. 3772 to 3776 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3772 of 2010 Date of decision July 5, 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 3773 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 3774 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 3775 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Akhilesh Kumar and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 3776 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....... Appellant Versus Neelam and others ........ Respondents FAO No. 3772 to 3776 of 2010 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ***** Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi , Advocate for the appellant. K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. This batch of appeals has been filed with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Delay condoned. 2. On merits, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle which was bearing registration No.9230 which had been involved in a case of accident had not been actually insured with them and the vehicle which was insured was bearing No.9280. The contention on behalf of the Road Transport Corporation was that it was a typographical error for 9230 and vehicle No.9280 did not belong to Road Transport Corporation. It was brought out in evidence that the vehicle 9280 belonged to some other party and it was Mahendra Tempo and vehicle No.9230 alone was that belonged to them. The Tribunal has considered the issue that vehicle which had been involved in the accident was vehicle No.9230 alone was to be taken as insured vehicle of the U.T. Road Transport Corporation. 3. I do not find that there is any scope for interference. The appeals are dismissed on merits. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 5, 2010 archana