Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-187-2023 2025:CGHC:44750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 187 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 30.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.474/2019 (Smt. Laxmi Sahu and others v. Chandrabhan Varma and another) by the 9th Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, R/o 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)............(Insurer Of Motorcycle No. Cg-04- H.R.-6311) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Sahu W/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chouk, Ward No. 06, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 2 - Khilendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 5 Years Minor Hence Representing Through His Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Laxmi Sahu, R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chouk, Ward No. 06, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 3 - Hemraj Sahu, S/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 2 Years Minor Hence Representing Through His Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Laxmi Sahu, R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chouk, Ward No. 06, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 4 - Ramji Sahu S/o Late Firturam Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chouk, Ward No. 06, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 5 - Smt. Pramila Sahu W/o Shri Ramji Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chouk, Ward No. 06, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 6 - Chandrabhan Verma, S/o Shri Ratiram Varma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khurmudi, Thana Neora Tilda, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Driver And Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg-04- H.R.-6311) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-187-2023 ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 02.09.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dt. 30.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.474/2019 (Smt. Laxmi Sahu and others v. Chandrabhan Varma and another) by the 9th Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.01-05/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.37,61,392/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7.5% PA, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that in the present case the offending vehicle was not found involved in the accident in question because the same was seized after 65 days from the date of accident and, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company has wrongly been held liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-187-2023 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record especially the written statement filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the learned MACT, would show that though the appellant-insurance company has taken specific plea that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question, but in order to prove the said fact no clinching evidence has been led by the appellant-Insurance Company. Only Ayub Khan (Witness No.01), who is a mechanic and has given mulahija report (Ex.P/D-1) of the offending vehicle before the police, has been examined, whereby he has only stated that upon examination of the offending vehicle he found that the front steering, front alloy wheel and front head light assembly were broken and the said vehicle was not in the condition to ply. Except this nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company to substantiate that the said vehicle (motor-cycle) was not involved in the accident in question or the same was wrongly implanted in the present case. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT, as the finding recorded by the learned MACT, in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-187-2023 and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if