Sss ^itt^-? 3E.: HlQMi©C)MlR^@iirHt-t NIS<3^l»Wa :i.;'?DIV^Ii@iNlBENCW; ':" . gQ^Mt HON^I-ESHIWlMU^ HON'Bl^St^^SUNU-KyMXRSlNHft.U. Misc.ABDealiNd.7S6f2003 APPEI.LANTS Claimarit^ 1. Smfc Rambhabai, aged 28 yrs, wdto NeTilakram. 2. Ku. Janki, aged 11 yrs. ct/o late Tilakram. 3. Niraj Kumar, aged 7'yrs, sito late Tilakram. Nos. 2 to 4 are minor heace sue throygh ^heir nnotheK and naturat guaFdianNO.I A af|e|^Bif^pn,^ taliSilsandai8t;Raipur,©.G.^ 'vV VERSUS Resporidents 1. Sheikh Sh^Kat @ Ctthotu, agied 37 yre,s/o. Sheikti SanibaJ, r/o R|ivteias Nagar; near Prat(ash Bakery, Power House, P.S. Chhaoni, dist, E)urg, C.G. :': ' ,.. (Diwer of the vehicle) 2 Manglyram^Dewangani,iaged ^ yrs., sfe|BMav Siilgh^ yeg^sitte ^nictor, i^^Bqi^^ot^ Si3|itias^ ^ ,^{li^,I)uig':!©.^^:':^•w':.':.:; ' (CSMnerofttievetMcl^i 3 Tl^isiew Indig 1 Ltd.,PoweRNou^Sfi^,(liil.Di.irg. --.^;:':^..^(-l^ll^^^ CI'&eiifisurer^fthev^laDcle) ]! ^N®EE^SMI>N6>Kii(i»©iaHHE subbu Present: None for theappellants. Smt Meera Jayaswal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER »th (16mDecember,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Noneforthe appettants. 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 forwant of proseGution. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- . ""• ^ Suitii Kumar Sinha ^ l Judge ].!; i 1 --7~S^^'%