1 MAC No. 1537 of 2019 2026:CGHC:14219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1537 of 2019  Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Behind Amar Talkies, Near Makai Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Rajkumar Dhruw S/o Samaru Dhruw, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Khamharia, Tehsil - Nagri District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhupeshwar Dhruw S/o Rajkumar Dhruw, Aged About 8 Years, Through His Father Rajkumar Dhruw, R/o Village Khamharia, Tehsil - Nagri District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3. Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Kumesh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Salipara Sankara, Police Station Sihawa, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4. (a) Ahir Singh S/o Late Brijlal Sahu, Aged About 60 years, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara, (Chindpara), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (b) Smt. Anusuya Bai D/o Late Brijlal Sahu, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara (Chindpara) Teshil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2026.03.25 16:24:18 +0530 2 MAC No. 1537 of 2019 (c) Jaichand Sahu S/o Late Brijlal Sahu, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara (Chindpara), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (d) Umesh Sahu S/o Late Brijlal Sahu Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara (Chindpara), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (e) Devraj Sahu S/o Late Brijlal Sahu, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara (Chindpara), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (f) Kalyan Sahu S/o Late Brijlal Sahu, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Sankara (Chindpara), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 5. Smt. Bisahin Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Premlal Sahu, R/o Sattipara, Sankara, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6. Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, B-7, Shriram Nagar, T. V. Tower Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25.03.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award 3 MAC No. 1537 of 2019 dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 34/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application of the claimants and awarded a sum of 8,12,696/- ₹ as compensation along with interest to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the appellant herein and other Insurance Company. The appellant herein is the insurer of the offence vehicle i.e. tractor. 2. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmuk, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that as per the FIR the deceased was traveling in the tractor as gratuitous passenger which is not permissible and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the instant deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 herein, would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and support the impugned award. 4 MAC No. 1537 of 2019 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that deceased Sumitra Bai was the pedestrian and he was not sitting on the offending tractor on the basis of statement of eye witness Rajendra Kumar (AW-1), husband of the deceased. Furthermore, in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari and others 1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly recorded that statement made before the Court has to be relied upon rather than the FIR and in the instant case eye witness Rajendra Kumar has clearly made statement before the Court that he and his wife (deceased) were pedestrian. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly allowed the claimants’ application. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly, it is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit 1 (2021) 18 SCC 596