s cf^'-l' BEFORE THE HON'BLETHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC^ No.^ ^ 1 / 2010 APPELLANT ^y^^'•r. .y u.^"<°' Ork^ ^- Sunil Kumar, S/o Shri Madanlal Sharma, Aged about 32-vyears, R/o Hatri BazarDhamdha, P.0. Dhamdha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg C.G. (Registered Owner of the Vehicle Metador bearing Regd. No. M.P. - 24/ C - 2082) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ..o 1. Keja Bai, Wd/o Late Ramsahay Yadav, Aged about 50 Years, 2. Raghunandan, S/o Late Ramsahay Yadav, Aged about 18 years, Both Respondents No. 1 & 2 are R/o Village and Post Ahiwara, District Durg, C.G. (Both Respondents No. 1 & 2 are Claimants) 3. Netram @ Netu, S/o Shankarlal Yadav, R/o Village and Post Dhamdha, Dhamdha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, C.G. (Driver of the Vehicle Metador bearing Regd. No. M.P.24/ C - 2082) 4. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of the Vehicle Metador bearing Regd. No. M.P.24/ C - 2082) 5. Shekh Bappi, 4 4 \ ^ S/o Junnu Sao Musalman, Through Bombay Transport Company, Tatiband Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur C.G. (Owner of Vehicle Trailer Regd. bearing No. M.P. 23/DA-1826) (Wrongly written as Car in place of Trailer) Mohd. A. Rahim, S/o Mohammad Chouse, Through Bombey Transport Company, Tatiband Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur C.G. (Owner of bearing Regd. 1826) Vehicle Trailer No. M.P. 23/DA- 7. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of the Vehicle Trailer bearing Regd. No. M.P. 23/DA- 1826) ^:, APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 XI-HC- 3^r^RTf^hF 'WT^T^T^WoF T ^ ^ •^r^n^,^Ni%/1^ ^,^:^±.sp.^wl/...;0 NIH<?n ^»^iT^% '^200— ^TI^T <<T5RT (<ic<t^<i^) ^?TOT irf?^ ^Tlt^T SA Hon'ble Shri Justice Pra OS.08.2010. None for the appellant. The matter was passejd representation on behatf of the | No one appears for the a( (n the circumstances, Court but to dismiss the prosecution. The appeal is dismissed ^iN ^i^<rff ^f fe^t <F»i^i< ^sffim^iT^T ihant Kumar Mishra over once In absence of any |tppetlant. i|3pellant even in the second call. is no other option left with the r|ttscellaneous appeal for want of ttlere for want of prosecution. S(V- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge