1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 140 of 2016 1 - Kartik Kumar Dhritlehre S/o Mahagudas Dhritlehre, Aged About 23 Years R/o Old Kashiram Nagar, Ward No. 44, Telibandha Ravigram, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.......Claimant. --- Appellant versus 1 - Bhimlal Banjare S/o Hiradas Banjare, Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhatapara Dhour, Police Station Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh…. (Driver Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. CG-04-G-8124). 2 - Ravikant Yadav S/o K. R. Yadav, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ring Road No. 02, Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...… (Owner Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. CG-04-G-8124). 3 - The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Branch Office Paras Complex, Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh..… (Insurer Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. CG-04-G- 8124). --- Respondents For Appellant : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Adv. MAC No. 377 of 2016 1 - Ravikant Yadav S/o Shri K.R. Yadav, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ring Road 2, Bhanpuri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ............Owner. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.29 15:20:38 +0530 2 ---Appellant Versus 1 - Kartik Kumar Dhritlahre S/o Shri Mahangudas Dhritlahre, Aged About 23 Years Occupation- Mason, R/o Old Kashiram Nagar, Ward No.44, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...........Claimant. 2 - Bheemlal Banjare S/o Heeradas Banjare, Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Village Bhatapara Dhour, Thana Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...........Driver. 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Paras Complex, Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh ..........Insurer. --- Respondents For Appellant : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. On 04.09.2025 and today also no one appeared on behalf of the appellant(s) in both the appeals. It appears that the appellant(s) is/are not interested in these cases. 2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant(s), this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu