-1- 2025:CGHC:17953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 961 of 2023 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Office 2nd Floor, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari Bharti W/o Late Vijay Kumar Bharati Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Tenduwahi, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kundan Bharti S/o Late Vijay Kumar Bharti Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tikeshwari Bharti. R/o Village Tenduwahi, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Heyansh Bharti S/o Late Vijay Kumar Bharti Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tikeshwari Bharti. R/o Village Tenduwahi, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Jambai Bharti W/o Nohar Singh Bharti Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tenduwahi, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sunil Malviya S/o Vishnu Malviya Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bangali Colony, P.S. Ghodari, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ramanand Sen S/o Baraturam Sen Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Belsonda, P.S., Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) -2- For Appellant : Ms. Shruti Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-93/2021, whereby the claim filed by the claimants was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 21,09,232/- was awarded. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of Vijay Kumar Bharti, who died in a road accident on 10.02.2021. It was pleaded that while returning from a picnic near Pajhra Nali, Village Kodar, the deceased was hit from the back side by a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-06-GQ-6217, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 5. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was declared dead at District Hospital, Mahasamund. An FIR No. 67/2021 was registered at Tumgaon Police Station for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and a charge-sheet was filed. The deceased was 25 years old and worked as a watchman, earning Rs. 9,000 per month. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 25,72,000 for the loss of dependency. -3- The owner and driver of the offending vehicle denied averments. They pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and hence, the liability rested with the insurance company. The appellant/insurance company, in its reply, questioned the delay in lodging the FIR (lodged on 19.03.2021), doubted the involvement of the offending vehicle and stated that the deceased himself was at fault. It was further alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the incident, violating the terms of the insurance policy. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated; there was a delay in lodging the FIR and proper investigation was not conducted. It was submitted that the driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving license, and therefore, the insurance company should be exonerated. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5) From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the insurance company did not take any specific plea with regard to the implant of the offending vehicle in its reply before the Tribunal. This issue has been raised for the first time in the present appeal. Further, the insurance company failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate the implant of the offending vehicle. Hence, the argument regarding the implant of the vehicle is without merit and substance. 6) Regarding the alleged breach of the insurance terms due to the lack of a valid driving license, the learned Tribunal has already recorded a categorical finding -4- that the driver had a valid license and the vehicle was not being driven in a breach of the policy terms. The Insurance Company failed to prove the contrary, therefore this ground also does not sustain. 7) The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age and income of the deceased based on the documentary and oral evidence. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award, accordingly, this fails and is hereby dismissed. 8) The insurance company is directed to pay the remaining amount of compensation within 60 days from today, failing which the award amount shall carry a penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM