1 2026:CGHC:21353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 901 of 2020 1 - M/s Singhal Crusher Industries Sariya District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh, Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Gopal Prashad Agrawal, S/o Late Mr. Ramavatar Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Poshak Palace, Azad Chowk, Police Station And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh. 496445. (Owner Of Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg-13- Uf-5511)., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Mr. Sudhir Yadav S/o Mr. Karu Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Bindal Road, Village Giridih, Police Station, Tehsil And District Giridih, Jharkhand - 815301. (Driver Of Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg-13-Uf-5511)., District : Giridih, Jharkhand … Appellants versus 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Shubham Complex, Near Kewdabadi Bus Stand, Tehsil And District Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh, 496001. (Insurance Company That Insured Truck Bearing Reg. No. Cg-13-Uf-5511)., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Mrs. Dukhdai Satyam W/o Late Mr. Lohrik Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Soniya Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil And District Raigarh ChhatÝsgarh., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 3 - Mr. Toshan Satyam S/o Late Mr. Lohrik Satnami Aged About 21 Years HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.05.08 10:45:40 +0530 2 R/o Soniya Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil And District Raigarh ChhatÝsgarh., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh 4 - Mr. Dineshwar Satyam S/o Late Mr. Lohrik Satnami Aged About 18 Years R/o Soniya Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil And District Raigarh ChhatÝsgarh., District : Raigarh, ChhatÝsgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 4: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 07.05.2026 1. On the last date of hearing i.e. 30/04/2026, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Today also the matter was called up twice for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the appellants. In these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet