1 2025:CGHC:43038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 907 of 2023 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited J.E. Plaza Airport Road Yarvada, Pune Maharashtra, Through Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Police Station Pandari, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sebani Sabar, W/o. Ghan Sabar Aged About 47 Years, Address Handigaon, P.S. Maakdi, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Borigaon, P.S. Daabgaon, District - Naurangpur, Orissa. 2 – Raith, S/o. Late Ghan Sabar, Aged About 21 Years, Address Handigaon, P.S. Maakdi, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Borigaon, P.S. Daabgaon, District - Naurangpur, Orissa. 3 – Indu, D/o. Late Ghan Sabar, Aged About 17 Years, Address Handigaon, P.S. Maakdi, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Borigaon, P.S. Daabgaon, District - Naurangpur, Orissa. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.28 10:24:24 +0530 2 4 - Meethu Bhatra, S/o. Sonsay Bhatra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Borigaon, P.S.- Daabgaon, District Naurangpur, Orissa. 5 - Ajodhya Prasad Gupta, S/o. Tulsi Gupta, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Borigaon, P.S.- Daabgaon, District Naurangpur, Orissa. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5. : Mr. U.N.S.Deo, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.08.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon in Claim Case No.79/2019, by which the claim application has been allowed and the liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.6,46,800/- to the claimants along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 3 2. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that though the seating capacity of the vehicle was only two persons i.e. driver & hamal but three persons were sitting in the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not responsible to pay compensation, as there is violation of insurance policy and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. U.N.S.Deo, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5 would support the impugned award and submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. It is the case of the appellant/insurance company that the deceased was sitting as hamal and vide Ex.D-4 the policy was covering the driver plus one other person. However, on behalf of the insurance company Atulya Sharan (Law Officer) has been examined but he did not say that the deceased person was sitting as a hamal and not sitting in the capacity of conductor and even the said plea was not raised before the Claims Tribunal. In that view of the 4 matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee by the appellant/insurance company within 15 days from today. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge