1 2025:CGHC:29649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1365 of 2017 1 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. S/o Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Opposite Tv Tower, Anupam Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Head Office At Unit 401, Fourth Floor Sangam Complex-127, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri, Mumbai Maharashtra, Maharashtra ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Nandini Thakur W/o Shri Kripa Singh Thakur Aged About 55 Years R/o Sheetla Chowk, Kushalpur, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kripa Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o Sheetla Chowk, Kushalpur, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Priyanshu Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Satish Singh Thakur Aged About 3 Years Being A Minor Is Represented Through His Next Friend Being Alleged Grandfather Kripa Singh Thakur, Son Of Late Shri Laxman Singh Thakur Aged About 58 Years, R/o Sheetla Chowk, Kushalpur, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Seema Thakur D/o Shri Kripa Singh Thakur Aged About 20 Years R/o Sheetla Chowk, Kushalpur, Thana Purani Basti, District 2 Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Narendra Singh S/o Shri Sugreev Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 327-D Jarvai Hirapur, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner And Driver , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This is the insurer’s appeal against the award dated 04.08.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.690/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.32,34,593/- with interest @ 09% per annum has been awarded in favour of the Claimants. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 25th August 2014, Satish Singh Thakur, while returning home on his motorcycle after work, was involved in an accident near Sarona Overbridge under the jurisdiction of Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The driver of a truck, bearing registration number C.G.-04 J. 0904 Respondent No.5, was driving recklessly, carelessly, and at a high speed, which led to the vehicle becoming uncontrollable and colliding with the motorcycle. As a result, Satish Singh Thakur, who was riding the 3 motorcycle, sustained serious bodily injuries. Despite receiving medical treatment, Satish Singh Thakur passed away on 30th October 2014 during the course of his treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Following the accident, a report was filed at the Amanaka Police Station, Raipur, and a criminal case was registered against the owner-cum-driver/Respondent No.5 under Crime No. 248/14 for the offenses under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hence this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence set-forth by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.5. It was further held by the Tribunal that the insured had sustained serious injuries in the accident which succumbed to death. Compensation to the tune of 32,34,593/- ₹ was granted by the Tribunal to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contends that the Learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in law in passing the impugned judgment and has misapprehended the evidence on record. It is further submitted that, on the date of the accident, the owner-cum-driver/Respondent No. 5 did not possess a valid and effective insurance policy; instead, he was in possession of a forged policy which was never issued by the appellant Insurance Company. Counsel further submits that 4 Respondent No. 5, the owner-cum-driver, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that no documentary evidence was produced to establish that the deceased was married; in the absence of such proof, any deductions ought to have been made in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal failed to consider the crucial fact that the accident resulted from a collision between two vehicles, one of which was driven by the deceased himself. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the Insurance Company ought to be exonerated from liability. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents/Claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 6. Respondents No.5 herein remained ex-parte and did not submit any written statement or evidence in support of their case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the vehicle involved in the accident, a 5 truck bearing registration number C.G 04 J 0904, was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of the incident. The accident, which occurred near Sarona Overbridge under Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, resulted in serious injuries to the deceased, Satish Singh Thakur, who subsequently died during treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation payable to the claimants. 9. In the absence of any cogent or convincing evidence by the appellant to establish the invalidity or forgery of the insurance policy, the finding of liability against the Insurance Company is both just and proper. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s findings warranting interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed, and If the insurance company has not already paid, it must pay the compensation amount. 11. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA