NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 1969 of 2024 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, 4th Floor, Maruti, Heights, Plot No. 1, Great Eastern Road, Behind R. K. Mall, Maruti Vihar, Kota Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. (Non Applicant No. 3) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Lalit Kumar Sinha S/o Sonsingh Sinha Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Navghata, Post Navghata, Tehsil And Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, C.G. (Claimant) 2 - Deepak Kumar Sinha S/o Lalit Kumar Sinha Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Navghata, Post Navghata, Tehsil And Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, C.G. (Claimant) 3 - Deepchand Sinha S/o Lalit Kumar Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Navghata, Post Navghata, Tehsil And Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, C.G. (Claimant) 4 - Tuman Sinha S/o Lalit Kumar Sinha Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Navghata, Tehsil And Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, C.G. (Driver) 5 - Ramdayal Nishad S/o Baliram Nishad Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Rengatola, Tehsil And Thana Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, C.G. (Owner) --- Respondents __________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 01 /04/2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / Insurance Company assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 27.06.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MACT No. 16/2024. 2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.68,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,04,000/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 /claimaints on account of death of deceased Pramila Bai Sinha with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in an accident that occurred on 16.09.2023 by ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.14 10:13:54 +0530 -2- rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.4. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.5. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under sections 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was a pillion rider in the offending vehicle which was been driven by respondent No.4 and on account of his rash and negligent driving, she feel down from the offending vehicle ans sustained severe injuries on her head and she was taken to H.M. Hospital, Raipura, Raipur during treatment in the I.C.U. she died on 17.09.2023. The report was lodged at Police Station – Berala, District – Bemetara where the offences punishable under sections 304-A of the IPC was registered in Crime No. 459/2023 was registered. 4. As per further pleadings, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.1000/- per day engaged in the business of sewing, embroidery and also a tent house. 5. The respondent 4 and 5 remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. 6. Appellant/Insurance Company filed his written statement and denied the averments of the Claim application and in usual course pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving license. There is a violation of terms and condition of the insurance Policy. No documentary evidence produced regarding the profession of the deceased. Hence, Insurance Company may be exonerated. 7. It is further stated that, as per the discharge summary of the hospital, the deceased is stated to have died due to falling from a motorcycle. Thus Claim application may be rejected. 8. On the basis of above broad pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and decided the same, and accordingly awarded the aforesaid compensation. -3- 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the report of the accident was lodged after at about 96 days. It itself creates a doubt with regard to involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Apart from this he submits that from the medical papers it can be gathered that deceased died on account of falling from the offending vehicle and it cannot be said to be negligent on the part of respondent no.4. Thus, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 10.Learned counsels for respondents opposing the submissions made by the appellant and submits that though despite pleading have been taken in the written statements, the appellant / Insurance Company has not led any evidence. Of course there are some delay in lodging the FIR but the Police has investigated the crime and after due investigating charge-sheet was filed by the respondent No.1 which was not been challenged by the appellants herein. Thus, there is no merit and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 12.Prime submission of Shri Mahiswar, Advocate is that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and there is delay in the FIR. Of course there is delay in the FIR, the written statement was filed by the Tribunal, this pleading was taken by the appellant / Insurance Company, however respondent No.1 and 2 has not examined any witness to prove its pleadings. Even they have not taken care to examine respondent No.5 to throw some light as to how accident has occurred. From the record it appears that investigation was carried out against the driver of the offending vehicle and after due investigation charge-sheet was filed. It is settled position of law that once the insurance claim pleads any facts in its written statement, it is required it to be proved it by cogent and prudent evidence. In the case in -4- hand, the Insurance Company failed to do so. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13.All the pending applications are disposed of. Sd/-Sd/-Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge -/ Ashish