r r' .R'i3 '}^^s.f«s '.E THE HIQH CQUR'l' OF JUU1CA1URE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUSL n>\ MA.fQ.No- /2009 ns,.,,;-,;,.,., isnpl SaSk ADpellaflts z^ v'. ^ ^v^_ VK^'l ^ ^^P ^v" s%^ ..^•se' Saiduddin Ali Khan aged about 65 years, Sto Rasduddin Sadudin Ali Khan aged 26 years S/o Saiduddm Ali Khan Salauddm Ali Klian aged 23 years S/o Saiduddin Ali Khan (All above R/o 316/5,Killa Mandir Ward Durg, Present address : near Nuri Masjid Faridnager Bhilai District Durg) Resoondents Versus Imran KhanS/o Aijaj Khan R/o WardNo. 8, M.D.S. Murtijapur District Akola, Maharastra) (Driver ofOffending Vehicle Tmck No. MP/06/E/2843) Kalim Khan S/o Sarfaraj Khan ,, R/o Lono Takld, Akela Ahrnw* (Owner ofOffending Vehicle Tmck No. MP/06/E/2843) <2r3. The Oriental Insurance CompanyLtd. Through Regional Manager, Parmanand Complex,Rajendra Nager chowk, Durg District Durg Insurai^ee Company ofOffending Vehicle No. I^P/06/E/2843 Memorandum OfAppeal Under Section 173 ofMotor Vehicle AcU988 Amount Claimed by the Claimant ; 851000 Amount Awarded By the Tribunal : 56954 Claim For Enhancement of Appeal : \s^~r 794046 Ki ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Misc Appeal (C) No. 221 of 2009 1 Saiduddin Ali Khan aged about 65 years, s/o Rasduddin 2 Saduddin Ali Khan aged .26 years s/o Saiduddin Ali Khan Respondents 3 Salauddin Ali Khan aged 23 years s/o Saiduddin A!i Khan (All above r/o 316/5, Killa MandirWard Durg, present address : near Nuri Masjid Faridnagar Bhilai district Durg) VERSUS 1 Imran Khan s/o Aijaj Khan r/o Ward No.8, M.D.S. Murtijapur district Akola, Maharastra (Driver of offending vehicle Truck NO.M.P./06/E/2843) 2 Kalim Khan s/o Sarfaraj Khan r/o Lono Taklo, Amravati (Owner of offending vehicle Truck NO.M.P./06/E/2843) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager, Parmanand Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Durg District Durg (Insurance Company of offending vehicle Truck No.M.P./06/E/2843) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : None for the appellants. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. .^;'";-'~"%\\ /y-^ ^ i fcss^ 1 % ~"tQ^-'% j, 'i „.. JJ •-^. ^^: ^ ^^^^. ''^ ../^11'^ MACNo.221of2009 ORDER »nd (02mAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. None for the appellants. 2) As there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, we are left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3) The appeal, therefore, is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- ChiefJustiee "> Sdf- R.N. Chandrater judge subbu