1 2026:CGHC:8977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2022 of 2018 The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office- Ilnd Floor Satigudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Devprasad Uraon S/o Butkuram Uraon Aged About 40 Years R/o Bade Devgaon, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ganeshi Bai W/o Devprasad Uraon Aged About 38 Years R/o Bade Devgaon, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kishankunwari D/o Devprasad Uraon Aged About 18 Years R/o Bade Devgaon, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra S/o Devprasad Uraon Aged About 20 Years R/o Bade Devgaon, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jamuna Prasad S/o Bhogilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Bade Devgaon, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 1807 of 2018 1 - Devprasad Uraon S/o Butakuram Aged About 40 Years R/o Bade Devgaon Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ganeshi Bai W/o Devprasad Aged About 38 Years R/o Bade Devgaon Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kishan Kunwari S/o Devprasad Aged About 18 Years R/o Bade Devgaon Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra S/o Deveprasad Aged About 20 Years R/o Bade Devgaon Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 17:54:47 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Jamunaprasad S/o Bhogilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Bade Devgaon Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited R/o Second Floor Satigudi Chowk Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : None For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.02.2026 1 Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing and the cases were called out, neither the learned counsel for the appellants nor the learned counsel for the respondents appeared before this Court. Even on the third call of the matters, none appeared to press these appeals. It thus appears that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the present appeals. 2 In view of the continued non-appearance of the parties and absence of any representation, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss these appeals for want of prosecution. 3 Accordingly, the present appeals stand dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh