Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-754-2023 2025:CGHC:44058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 754 of 2023 [Arising out of award dated 06.02.2023, passed in Claim Case No.133/2021 (Smt. Babita Agrawal and others v. Vijay Ratan Jaiswal and others) by the 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG)] SBI General Insurance Company Limited Through General Manager, Sbi General Insurance Company Limited, Natraj 101,201301 Junction Of Western Express Highway And Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai (M.H.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt Babita Agrawal, Wd/o Late Mukesh Agrwal Aged About 38 Years R/o Nawapara Currently Residing At Krishna Vihar Colony, Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Mehul Bansal S/o Late Mukesh Bansal Aged About 19 Years Minor Is Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Babita Agrawal. R/o Nawapara Currently Residing At Krishna Vihar Colony, Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Shristi Bansal (Minor), D/o Late Mukesh Bansal Aged About 13 Years Minor Is Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Babita Agrawal. R/o Nawapara Currently Residing At Krishna Vihar Colony, Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vijay Ratan Jaiswal S/o Govind Ram Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner, R/o Chhal , Tehsil Dharmjaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 5 - Ranjeet Kumar Mehto S/o Shivaji Mehto Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Lakhighat, Kacchi Line, Thana Titagarh, Kolkata, West Bengal. Currently Residing At Gurudev Medical Rented Quarter, Thana Chhal, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-754-2023 ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr. VR Jaiswal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 29.08.2025 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 06.02.2023, passed in Claim Case No.133/2021 (Smt. Babita Agrawal and others v. Vijay Ratan Jaiswal and others) by the 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.01/- 03claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.14,38,000/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7.5% PA, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that in the present case the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question and, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company has wrongly been held liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-754-2023 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record especially the written statement filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the learned MACT, would show that no such plea that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question or the same was wrongly implanted in the present case, were taken by the appellant-insurance company before the learned MACT and, for the first time before this Court, in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act, the said plea has been taken by the appellant-Insurance Company, which is impermissible and cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in this appeal. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT, as the finding recorded by the learned MACT, in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 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