1 2025:CGHC:44736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 488 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Dhamtari, Bathena Chowk, Sinha Complex, Raipur Road Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Wegan-R, Car No. Cg- 4dk/1211) … Appellant versus 1 - Suman Uike W/o Late Mukesh Uike Aged About 26 Years Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 2 - Ankita Uike D/o Late Mukesh Singh Uike Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Next Friend Gardian Mother Suman Uike W/o Mukesh Uike Age 26 Years (Sudam Bai W/o Gulab Singh Uike Age 48 Years Died/deleted). Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 3 - Sankita D/o Late Mukesh Singh Uike Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Next Friend Gardian Mother Suman Uike W/o Mukesh Uike Age 26 Years (Sudam Bai W/o HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.03 10:51:32 +0530 2 Gulab Singh Uike Age 48 Years Died/deleted). Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 4 - Gulab Singh S/o Shankarlal Uike Aged About 53 Years Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 5 - Anil Uike S/o Gulab Singh Uike Aged About 22 Years Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 6 - Satish Uike S/o Gulab Singh Uike Aged About 24 Years Resident Village Khamalpur Post Ghara Khoh, Thana Ranipur Tah. Ghoda Dongri District Baitul M.P. Pin Code No. 460443 7 - Pradeep Sahu S/o Thanuram Sahu Aged About 48 Years Resident Village Pachpedi Thana Bhakhra, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 8 - Ravindra S/o Sant Kumar Aged About 36 Years Resident - Village Kurud, Tahsil And Thana Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Wegan-R Car No. Cg_4dk/1211). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 7 & 8 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 02.09 .2025 1. Appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 29/10/2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 242/2019 whereby compensation of Rs. 58,82,200/- has been granted in favour of respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants for the death of Mukesh Uike, aged about 30 years, who worked as a Police Constable and earned a monthly salary of Rs. 26,808/-, and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would vehemently submit that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 4 DK – 1211, driven by respondent No. 7, owned by respondent No. 8 and insured with the appellant company, has wrongly been implicated as the accident occurred on 02/05/2018, the deceased died on 12/05/2018 and the vehicle was seized as late as on 29/08/2018 vide Ex. P/13, as such, the appellant (Insurance Company) ought to have been exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation. He would further 4 submit that while passing the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal firstly granted the compensation with an interest of 8 % per annum in paragraph 32(1) of the judgment but thereafter, in paragraph 32(2) of the judgment, the Tribunal imposed penal interest of 12% per annum, which may be set aside. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants, though served. 4. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8, would support the impugned award and submit that though the vehicle in question was involved in the accident, but it was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and was being plied in terms of the insurance policy, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The appellant (Insurance Company) has taken an express plea in paragraphs 2 as well as 9(a) of their written statement that though the accident has taken place on 02/05/2018 but the offending vehicle herein i.e. Wagon R 5 car bearing Registration No. CG 4 DK – 1211 was not involved in the accident and it has falsely been implicated and has deliberately been seized as late as on 29/08/2018 and therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) is not responsible for payment of compensation. However surprisingly, though such a plea of non-involvement of vehicle was expressly taken by the appellant (Insurance Company) in their written statement, but no evidence was led by them to prove the said fact. Moreover, learned Claims Tribunal has also recorded an clear finding in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment that respondents No. 7 and 8 i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle have not taken a plea that their vehicle was wrongly implicated in the accident in question, which states as under :- “(18) जहाँ तक प्रश्नधीन वाहन को घटना के पश्चात् प्रतितकर पाने के उद्देश्य से सोच समझकर संलि!प्त किकये जाने का प्रश्न है तो चूंकिक यह आधार बीमा कं पनी द्वारा उठाया गया था तो इस सम्बन्ध में धारा 101 साक्ष्य अतिधकिनयम के तहत सबूत भार भी बीमा कं पनी पर है और इस सम्बन्ध में उन्हें ठोस साक्ष्यों द्वारा अभिभ!ेख पर इस सम्बन्ध में साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने से और यह दर्शि=त करना था की वाहन को सोच समझकर संलि!प्त किकया गया है, परन्तु बीमा कं पनी द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में मात्र कथन किकये गए है परन्तु ऐसे कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किकये गए हैं जिजससे प्रश्नगत वाहन का सोच समझकर संलि!प्त किकया जाना दर्शि=त होता है। मुख्य यह है की इस सम्बन्ध में अनावेदक क्र। 1 एवं 2 सम्पूर्णL प्रकरर्ण में उपस्थिस्थत होकर अपनी प्रतितरक्षा किकये हैं और न तो अपने अभिभकथनों में और न ही सम्पूर्णL कायLवाही के दौरान उनके वाहन को सोच समझकर संलि!प्त किकये जाने और उनके वाहन से कोई दुघLटना घकिटत नहीं होने सम्बन्धी कोई भी कथन/भि=कायत नहीं की गयी है। ” 7. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that though the appellant (Insurance Company) 6 has taken an express plea about wrongly implicating the offending vehicle in the accident, but it has not led any evidence to prove the said plea, I do not find any merit in the matter. 8. However, the Claims Tribunal though awarded an interest of 8% per annum in paragraph 32(1) of the impugned judgment but thereafter, awarded penal interest of 12% per annum in paragraph 32(2), which is unsustainable and it is accordingly held that as directed in paragraph 32(1) of the impugned judgment, the appellant (Insurance Company) will pay interest of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 23/02/2019 till its realization. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No cost(s). Since respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants have not appeared before this Court, a copy of this order be sent to them for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet