1 MAC No. 554 of 2023 2025:CGHC:43799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 554 of 2023  National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office 1st Floor Shanti Chhabi Tower Sirasar Chowk Power House Road, above Allahabad Bank Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 3). ... Appellant versus 1. Radhani Korram Wd/o Usaru Korram, Aged About 33 Years; 2. Minor Phaleshwari Korram D/o Late Usaru Korram, Aged About 14 Years; 3. Minor Divya Korram D/o Late Usaru Korram, Aged About 12 Years; 4. Minor Jyoti Korram D/o Late Usaru Korram, Aged About 8 Years; 5. Minor Devichand Korram S/o Late Usaru Korram, Aged About 5 Years; 6. Minor Bharti Korram D/o Late Usaru Korram, Aged About 3 Years; Respondents No.2 to 6 are minor through their mother - Radhani Kurram (Res. No. 1) 7. Ramnath Korram S/o Singrai Korram, Aged About 60 Years; ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.30 11:21:44 +0530 2 MAC No. 554 of 2023 8. Kamli Korram W/o Ramnath, Aged About 58 Years; Respondents/Applicants No.1 to 8 all are Muria by Cast, R/o Village Tatari, P.O. - Golawand, Tahsil & District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 9. Jitendra Baghel S/o Shri Govardhan Baghel, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village - Bamhani, P.S. - Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non - Applicant No. 1). 10. Chandan Singh Sethiya S/o Umesh Sethiya Aged About 32 Years R/o - Village - Golawand, Tehsil And District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non - Applicant No. 2) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 8 :- Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.08.2025 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 dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.31/2020 by which the application of the claimants for grant of 3 MAC No. 554 of 2023 compensation has been allowed and 18,92,912/- along with ₹ interest has been awarded to the claimants/dependents of deceased Usaru Korram by fastening the liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company and if the compensation amount is not given within the stipulated time, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount along with penal interest @ 9%. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting compensation to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. He would also submit that offending vehicle was driven by Hemchand Sethiya which is evident from the records produced before the Claims Tribunal, but thereafter, charge- sheet has been preferred against Jitendra Baghel, stating that the offending vehicle was rashly and negligently driven by Jitendra Baghel which has wrongly been done and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. He would further submit that penal interest ought not to have been granted to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance 4 MAC No. 554 of 2023 Company, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel for the claimants, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award granted by the Claims Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. Though, it is evident from FIR (Ex.P/2) and merg intimation (Ex.P/4) name of Hemchand Sethiya has been mentioned as a driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, but the charge-sheet has been preferred against Jitendra Baghel, and surprisingly, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Investigation Officer has not been examined to clear the fact that the offending vehicle was driven by Hemchand Sethiya and not driven by Jitendra Baghel. As such, the Insurance Company has failed to prove its pleading by leading evidence. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is correct finding of facts based on 5 MAC No. 554 of 2023 evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. However, the claimants should be entitled for compensation along with interest @ of 6% as the penal interest @ 9% is not sustainable. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit