1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1075 of 2018 National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional - Office, B 1 Taha Complex - Ist Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road, In Front Of Priydarshini Nagar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 3 ) ... Appellant. versus 1 - Smt. Bhagmati Porte W/o Saroj Porte Aged About 26 Years Caste - Gond, 2 - Pritam Porte S/o Late Saroj Porte Aged About 10 Years Caste - Gond 3 - Pratibandh @ Pratidwand Porte S/o Late Saroj Porte Aged About 8 Years Caste Gond 4 - Ku. Pratibha Porte D/o Late Saroj Porte, Aged About 6 Years Caste Gond 5 - Ku. Susmita Porte D/o Late Saroj Porte Aged About 4 Years caste gond. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 Minor - Through Their Mother Smt. Bhagmati Porte ( Respondent No. 1 ) 6 - Smt. Bahura Bai Porte, W/o Santram Porte, Aged About 60 Years Caste - Gond 7 - Santram Porte S/o Late Dhishan Singh Porte , Caste – Gond. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.13 10:35:49 +0530 2 Respondent Nos.1 to 7 all are R/o Village Beltukari , Post Office Pasid, Police Station And Tahsil Belha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Rajkumar Paikara D/o Anjare Singh Paikara, Aged About 25 Years R/o Kotami Khurd, Police Station And Tahsil - Pendraroad ,district Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Hall Mukam - Police Line Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ) ( Non - Applicant No. 1 ), 9 - Ajay Kumar Yadav S/o Narayan Yadav, R/o House No. - 559, Ward No. 16 Budhwari Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ) ( Non Applicant No. 2 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. The appeal is listed for final hearing yet no one appears on behalf of the appellant in the first half. 2. Even in the second half, when the matter is called, no one appears on behalf of the appellant nor any representation is made. 3. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash