1 2025:CGHC:50259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1518 of 2025 1. Purushottam Ram S/o Biran Ram Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner R/o Village Pandripani, P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur, Post Dandgaon, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Trolley) 2. Santkumar Yadav S/o Dukhiram Yadav Aged About 50 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Gumga, P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Trolley) ... Appellants(s) versus 1. Baratu Shyam @ Baratu S/o Rupan Aged About 53 Years Gond Caste, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Kharsura, P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur, Post Salka, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2. Laxminiya Shyam W/o Baratu Shyam @ Baratu Ram Aged About 52 Years Gond Caste, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Kharsura, P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur, Post Salka, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3. Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Post Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/driver & owner : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.10 .2025 1. The appellants/ driver & owner of the offending vehicle have preferred this appeal against award dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned 7th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikaspur, District Surguja in Claim Case No. 95/2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.09 15:30:48 +0530 2 Rs. 9,69,640/- against the appellants. 2. It appears that this appeal was filed by the appellants on 11.06.2025, but receipt of deposit of mandatory amount of Rs. 25,000/- was not placed on record. The office pointed out default and case was listed before the Additional Registrar Judicial on 14.07.2025, but no-one appeared. Thereafter, on 17.07.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants sought two weeks’ time to cure the defect and on 01.09.2025 again four weeks’ time was granted, but till date the receipt of deposit of mandatory amount has not been placed. 3. Considering the above-stated facts, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the instant appeal, accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant