-1- 2025:CGHC:29646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 383 of 2019 Smt. Shyamta Bai Sonwani (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet Shyama Bai Sonwani) W/o Vishram Sonwani Aged About 40 Years , Resident of Village - Khaija (Navapara) Chowki Pantora, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. [Owner Of The Offender Vehicle Tractor CG 11AH 5648 And Trolley No 11 AH 3811) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Aged About 52 Years 2 - Khikh Bai W/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 41 Years 3 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 16 Years 4 - Ku. Mamta D/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 16 Years 5 - Suresh Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 10 Years (Respondent No. 3 To Respondent No. 5 Are Minor Legal Guardian Respondent No. 2] (Respondent No. 1 To 5 are Claimants) 6 - Vijay Kumar Lahre S/o Harnarayan Lahre Aged About 26 Years (Non Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Offender Vehicle Tractor CG 11 AH 5648 And Trolley No. 11 Ah 3811) Respondents No. 1 to 6 are resident Of Village Khaija (Navapara) Chowki Pantora, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Branch Manager Chola Mandalum M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Vyapar Vihar Road Infront Of Renault Show Room, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.03 11:34:48 +0530 -2- ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate For Resp. No.6 : None appears For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 01/07/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties outside the Court and, therefore, appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is not opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen