1 CGHC010161342025 2026:CGHC:42419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1037 of 2025 1 - Poshan Dheemar S/o Ramdayal Dheemar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Nagpura, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 L.E. 8949) 2 - Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Shri Bhukhan Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Nagpura, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 L.E. 8949) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Teekaram Joshi S/o Shri Shivcharan Joshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Borai, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Claimants) 2 - Smt. Savitri Bai Joshi W/o Shri Teekaram Joshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Borai, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Minakshi Joshi D/o Shri Teekaram Joshi Aged About 11 Years (Minor Represented Through Father Teekaram Joshi S/o Shri Shivcharan Joshi), R/o Village - Borai, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Rohitash Jangde S/o Shri Divendra Jangde R/o Village - Selud, Police Station - Utai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 B.M. 0442) 5 - Chandrashekhar Bandhe S/o Shri Gajju Bandhe R/o Village - Borai, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 B.M. 0442) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.30 11:11:57 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : None For Respondents No.1 to 3 None For Respondent(s) No.4 & 5 : Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Adv., on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29/09/2026 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the impugned award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, CG, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.84/2020. 2. On the previous date of hearing i.e.30.07.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. 3. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, there was again no representation on behalf of the appellants, which shows that the appellants are no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. The present appeal has been preferred by the driver and the owner. 4. Hence, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellants, 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