1 2025:CGHC:33074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 50 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisioner-Officer, Kutchery, Chowk, Raipur, Tah And Dist- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .........Non-Applicant No. 3. , Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pitamber Das S/o Premdas Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Kota Near Amanaka Railway Crossing Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .........Applicant No. 2., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raj Kumari W/o Pitamber Das Aged About 43 Years R/o Kota Near Amanaka Railway Crossing Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.........Applicant No.2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ganesh Ram S/o Madhav Das Through Ms Satpal Road Lines Fafadeh, Raipur Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, C. G. Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. M.P. 23 D 2731. Non-Applicant No. 1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Amarjeet Kaur W/o D. P. Singh Through M/s Satpal Road Lines, Fafadeh, Tah. And Dist- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......... Onwer Of Vehicle No. Mp 23 D 2731.........Non-Applicant No.2., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. The present is an insurance appeal assailing the award dated 29.07.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 24/2002, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,58,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondents No. 1 to 2 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 15.06.2002 at about 1:00 p.m., respondent No. 3, while driving the truck bearing registration No. MP-26-D-2731 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), rashly and negligently hit another truck bearing registration No. CG-07-ZC-0500, as a result of which Bhagwan Das Ravi Maikpuri sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. For the death of Bhagwan Das, his parents (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) 3 have filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,65,000/- against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and the appellant. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in their joint written statement, denied the claim and stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. The appellant i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in its written statement, denied the claim and asserted that it was not the insurer of truck No. MP-26-D-2731 and further contended that the deceased died due to his own negligence. The appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. The learned Tribunal, after inquiry, dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 28.02.2004, against which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal (M.A. No. 797/2004) before the Hon’ble High Court. The appeal was decided on 02.09.2013, and the case was remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to pass a fresh award after allowing the parties to amend their pleadings, adduce evidence, and provide an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, the Tribunal conducted an inquiry and passed a fresh award, granting a total sum of Rs. 2,58,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, payable within 90 days, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and the appellant jointly and severally. 4 3. Learned counsel for the the appellant insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He further submits that as per the insurance policy, vehicle No. MP 23D 2731 was insured with the appellant for the period 16.02.2002 to 15.03.2003, whereas the police report mentions the offending vehicle as MP 26D 2731, which was never insured by the appellant. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly treated the difference in registration numbers as a typographical error, misinterpreted the policy, and fastened liability upon the appellant without proof of insurance for MP 26D 2731. The owner did not produce the R.C. Book and admitted owning MP 23D 2731, not MP 26D 2731. Hence, the finding that MP 26D 2731 was insured with the appellant is erroneous, and the appellant Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from liability. Hence, this appeal. 4. None for the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the grounds raised by the insurance company that number of vehicle has wrongly been typed in the insurance policy is unsustainable and accordingly it is not being taken into consideration as such the tribunal has not committed any error of 5 law and same is not required to be interfered with. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat