Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26417 (CHH)

KHAGESH VERMA v. BHUPENDRA SINGH

MAC/420/2023 · 2026-07-12

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010067432023 2026:CGHC:29494 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 420 of 2023 Khagesh Verma S/o Kripashankar Verma Aged About 27 Years Through- Next Friend Kripashankar Verma S/o Kejaram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ghutheli Post - Sildaha, District -Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Bodri, Chakarbhatha, Tahsil -Bilha District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhupendra Singh S/o Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi R/o Village Dhaneli, Police Station And Tahsil Bhathapara, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh (Driver of Hiwa Vehicle No. C.G. 22 G 9672). 2 - Maurya Agro Aagrow Transport, Through Propietor Smt. Pushpa Devi Through Shri Santosh Chandra Maurya R/o House No. D 141, Ambuja Vidyapath, Arjuni Bazaarabazar, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Hiway Vehicle No. CG 22 G 9672). 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor Gurukripa Tower, Infront of Amber Automobiles Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Hiwa Vehicle No. Cg 22 G 9672) ... Respondents For the appellant : None For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 13.07.2026 By this appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is seeking enhancement of the award dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned VIII Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No. 741/2018 2 On previous date of hearing i.e., 10.11.2025 , no one had chosen to appear despite the case was called in second round. Again on 24.04.2026, neither the appellant was represented by any counsel nor was present in person to argue his case. Even today when the matter is taken up for hearing no one appears for the appellant. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, this Court is left with no other way except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao