1 (MAC No. 666 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:40791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 666 of 2023 1 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jwalabai W/o Late Krishan Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dhardei, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir - Champa, Presently R/o Ward No. 02, Lawan, Tahsil Lawan, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant) 2 - Ayush Kumar S/o Late Krishan Kumar Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Jwala Bai/ Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Dhardei, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir - Champa, Presently R/o Ward No. 02, Lawan, Tahsil Lawan, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant) 3 - Unesh Kumar S/o Late Krishan Kumar Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Jwala Bai / Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Dhardei, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir - Champa, Presently R/o Ward No. 02, Lawan, Tahsil Lawan, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant) 4 - Badrika Bai W/o Giriram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dhardei, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir - Champa, Presently R/o Ward No. 02, Lawan, Tahsil Lawan, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant) 5 - Chait Ram Sahu S/o Samaruram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Khorsi, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) ....... .. (Driver Of Car No. C.G. 10 N 2786) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.19 11:29:26 +0530 2 (MAC No. 666 of 2023) 6 - Santosh Kumar S/o Firatram Thawait Aged About 45 Years Katgi, Ward No. 13, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar , Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car No. C.G. 10 N 2786) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants :- Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :- Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 13.08 .2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh in Claims Case No.55/2021, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,62,210/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim application has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offending vehicle bearing No.CG 10 3 (MAC No. 666 of 2023) N 2786 has wrongly been involved in the accident as the FIR was lodged with a delay of 111 days and, therefore, the appellant-insurance company be exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation. He would further submit that there is a calculation error in the impugned award. 3. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Though the appellant-insurance company has taken a plea in para 1 of its written statement that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident as there was a delay of 111 days in lodging the FIR but no evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant-insurance company to substantiate the aforesaid plea raised in the written statement. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has categorically recorded a finding at para 12 of the impugned award that the appellant-insurance company has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and therefore, proceeded to fasten liability upon 4 (MAC No. 666 of 2023) the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. So far as the submission with regard to calculation error in the impugned award is concerned, the appellant is at liberty to file an application before the concerned Claims Tribunal for correction of the said calculation error. 6. As such, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!