1 2025:CGHC:41618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 731 of 2022 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, DB, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1- Smt. Chandrakumari Verma, W/o. Late Lakhanlal Verma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2- Ku. Simran, D/o. Late Lakhanlal Verma, Aged About 4 Years, Minor, Represented Through Mother/ Respondent No.1, R/o. Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3- Princeu, S/o. Late Lakhanlal Verma, Aged About 1 Year, Minor, Represented Through Mother/ Respondent No.1, R/o Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.19 17:03:48 +0530 2 4- Chhedilal Verma, S/o. Budeshwar Verma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o. Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5- Smt. Kamla Bai, W/o. Chhedilal Verma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o. Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6- Hemant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Jagnathiya Shau, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Village Sail, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5. : Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.08.2025 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 award dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District 3 Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Claim Case No.57/2020, whereby an amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application and the liability has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company, would submit that the deceased Lakhan Lal Verma has borrowed the vehicle owned by Hemant Kumar Sahu, therefore, he stepped into the shoes of owner of the vehicle and, as such, the claim application under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Mr. Suresh Verma, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 5 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the insurance company 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. The learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the deceased was paid driver of the owner of 4 motorcycle and it could not be proved that the deceased was driving the vehicle after borrowing the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he will come under the third party. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, as such, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of facts based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok