1 2025:CGHC:7051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1687 of 2024 1 - Suraj Bramhdev S/o Shri Ghanshyam Bramhdev Aged About 25 Years R/o Behind Satnam Darbar, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tata S.Hearing Registration No. C.G.04 Zd 2026) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Maleshin Lahri W/o Late Shrawan Lahri Aged About 44 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandhya Lahri D/o Late Shrawan Lahri Aged About 22 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Karan Kumar Lahri S/o Late Shrawan Lahri Aged About 20 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Pooja Lahri D/o Late Shrawan Lahri Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Maleshin Lahri, R/o Satnam Chowk, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Resham Lal Todhar S/o Shri Dhanjeet Todhar Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 274, Dhamtari Road, Satnam Chowk, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tata S. Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Zd 2026) 6 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tata S. Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Zd 2026) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.02.2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking the following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set-aside/ quash the impugned award dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Fourth Upper Motro Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.577 of 2020 in respect of case of the appellant and may kindly be issued direction to pay awarded compensation amount liability fasten upon the driver respondent No.3, in the interest of justice.” 2. The appellant/ owner preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’), but he failed to deposit the mandatory amount as required under the Act, 1988. Furthermore, the office granted sufficient time for the appellant to deposit the said amount, but the appellant failed to deposit the same. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant failed to deposit the mandatory amount, the appeal is hereby dismissed on this count alone. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi