Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26650 (CHH)

HRIDAY KUMAR VISHWAKARMA v. NOHAR PRASAD DAHARIYA

MAC/1219/2018 · 2025-08-04

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:38786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1219 of 2018 Hriday Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Shri Sahadur @ Bahadur Vishwakarma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Budana, Police Station Baloda, Presently Resided At Sarvamangala Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Kotghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Nohar Prasad Dahariya S/o Shri Santosh Dahariya Aged About 24 Years R/o Sambalpuri, Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver Of Offending Vehicle) 2 - Premchander Singh S/o Shri Ram Lal Singh R/o Near Awadhut Bhagwan Ram Sewa Ashram, Near Forest Barrier Balco, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.......(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through The General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Hq E-08, Epip Industrial Area Seetapur, Jaipur, Rajsthan......(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle).........(Non-Applicants) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal even in two rounds. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company, is present. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.06 18:36:20 +0530 2 3. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the appellant is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal on repeated calls and it appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh