1 2026:CGHC:25964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1373 of 2022 1 - Siddharth Jain S/o Uttamchand Jain Aged About 28 Years R/o 10/1, Rishbh Nagar, Ward No. 39, Kachari Ward Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of The Car No. C.G. 10 AC/2040) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Parmeshwari Sahu W/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Village Devri (Kha), P.O. Vinayakpur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Lolita D/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Parmeshwari Sahu, R/o Ward No. 02, Village Devri (Kha), P.O. Vinayakpur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - Priyanshu Sahu S/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 11 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Parmeshwari Sahu, R/o Ward No. 02, Village Devri (Kha), P.O. Vinayakpur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gajanand S/o Bhavanlal Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Village Devri (Kha), P.O. Vinayakpur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Mahawati W/o Gajanand Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Village Devri (Kha), P.O. Vinayakpur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 6 - Soyat Ali S/o Hasan Li Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Urla, Ward No. 57, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Car No. C.G. 10 AC/2040) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.06.25 10:24:10 +0530 2 For Appellant : None For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/06/2026 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the impugned award dated 17.08.2022 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) in Claim Case No.17/2021 awarding compensation of Rs.31,52,204/- in favour of the claimants. 2. On the previous dates of hearing, i.e. 27.03.2026 & 13.05.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. 3. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, there was again no representation on behalf of the appellant, which shows that the appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal. 4. Hence, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai