1 2026:CGHC:6884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2120 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jhamit Bai W/o Late Jeevanlal Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Raipura, Tahsil Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Nisha Thakur D/o Late Jeevanlal Thakur Aged About 10 Years Minor Through- Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jhamit Bai R/o Village Raipura, Tahsil Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - Daksha Kumar S/o Late Jeevan Lal Thakur Aged About 5 Years Minor Through- Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jhamit Bai R/o Village Raipura, Tahsil Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Bhaiyalal Aged About 32 Years R/o Balinath Para, Near E.V. Sub Station Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. -07 B.H. 8369 ) 2 - Neeraj Gupta S/o Satyanarayan Gupta, R/o Ward No. 37, Azad Ward Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. -07 B.H. 8369 ) 3 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, Branch Office 5th Floor, Shop No. 501, 509, 512 D.B. City Corporate Park, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. -07 B.H. 8369 ) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : None appeared even in two rounds For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.07 12:08:50 +0530 2 judgment and award passed by the Ist Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 67/2023 dated 04.03.2025, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.17,40,525/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Jeevanlal Thakur. 2. The matter is called twice, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants/Claimants in the first round as well as in the second round. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti