Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2016 DAILYLAW 595 (CHH)

Bafna Earth Movers Limited v. Geeta Shrivas

MAC/1412/2016 · 2026-04-28

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2016

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1412 of 2016 Bafna Earth Movers Limited, 5 Malviya Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, Through- Its Director, Ajay Bafna, S/o Late Phoolchand Bafna, Age- 47 Years, R/o Malviya Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh.... Owner ... Appellant versus 1 - Geeta Shrivas W/o Late Vishnu Shrivas, Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Kailash Nagar, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Khushbu D/o Late Vishnu Shrivas, Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Kailash Nagar, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh..... Claimants. 3 - Sohan Lal Sahu S/o Banshi Lal Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Rajauli, Police Station- Ranchirai, Tahsil- Gunderdehi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh..... Driver 4 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Station Road, Near L. I. C. Office, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...... Insurer ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29/04/2026 1. This is an owner’s appeal challenging the award dated BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.29 15:03:07 +0530 2 02.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.22/2015 awarding compensation of Rs.3,74,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. 2. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., 15.04.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. 3. Today, when the matter was called for hearing in the second round, there was again no representation on behalf of the appellant, which shows that the appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal. 4. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai