Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-27-2023 2025:CGHC:39510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 27 of 2023 [Arising out of award dated 29.10.2022, passed in Claim Case No.120/2021 (Milan Bai Baretha and others v. Kamal Prasad Purseth and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG)] United India Insurance Company Limited Head Office 24, White Road Chennai 600014, Through Manager, T.P.Hub Bilaspur, L.I.C.Building, 1st Floor, Magarpara Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Milan Bai Bareth W/o Late Rohit Kumar Bareth Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh....Claimants. 2 - Tilotama Bareth Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Girja Bareth Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Komal Bareth Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Anju Bareth Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Milan Bai Bareth W/o Late Rohit Bareth W/o Late Rohit Bareth R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Minor Mamta Bareth W/o Late Rohit Bareth Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Milan Bai Bareth, R/o Village Main Basti Barpali, Post Bade Bhandar, Rtahsil Pusour, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Kamal Prasad Puseth S/o Mahendra Kumar Purseth Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Pata, Post Dolesara, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh........Owner 8 - Ramkumar Rathiya S/o Kartikaram Rathiya Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bandhapali, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.......Driver ... Respondent(s) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-27-2023 [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondents : None though served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 07.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 29.10.2022, passed in Claim Case No.120/2021 (Milan Bai Baretha and others v. Kamal Prasad Purseth and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01 to 6/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.17,15,400/- has been awarded to they alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization, which is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that in the present case in order to get undue compensation the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-Company has falsely alleged to have been involved in the incident in question. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. None appeared for the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-27-2023 submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant- Insurance Company before the learned MACT would show that they have specifically taken a plea in Para-16 of the written statement that though the FIR was registered against unknown person and closure report was also filed, but after lapse of one year the offending vehicle was seized, which was insured with them and same has been allegedly stated to have been involved in the accident in question. However, in order to prove the said plea (Para-16), though Pramila Gajbhai (Wintess No.01) being the Officer of the Insurance Company has been examined, but she did not utter any word with regard to wrongful involvement of the offending vehicle in the incident in question and, therefore, the learned MACT has proceeded to fasten liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. As such, the findings recorded by the learned MACT, in the considered opinion of this Court, is well merited under the facts and circumstances of the present case and, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if