1 2025:CGHC:18332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1187 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through The Regional Manager, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Anusuiya Chouhan W/o Late Vyas Chouhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Paras Chouhan S/o Damru Chouhan Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jalmoti Chouhan W/o Paras Chouhan Aged About 40 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Pas Chouhan), R/o Ward No. 9, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ajeet Chouhan S/o Paras Chouhan, Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Father Paras Chouhan (Wrongly Mentioned As Mother Anusuiya Chouhan), R/o Ward No. 9, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ajay Chouhan S/o Paras Chouhan, Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Father Paras Chouhan (Wrongly Mentioned As Mother Anusuiya Chouhan). R/o Ward No. 9, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.24 12:11:30 +0530 2 6 - Pradeep Kumar Tandi S/o Premlal Tandi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kodoguda, Police Station- Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ramekbal Shah S/o Manish Shah R/o House No. 56-A, Amariyapara, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Qamrul Azia, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vevekanand Samaddar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Adv. For Other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 23 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. The present is an Insurer’s appeal assailing the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 09/2016, whereby a compensation of Rs. 9,45,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.41,00,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow and heirs (respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) of deceased – Vyas Chouhan by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 11.12.2015, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.9,45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the Scorpio Car bearing registration No. CG-12-L- 7777 by its driver Pradeep Kumar Tandi – respondent No.6 herein; Vyas Chouhan died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident; there was no breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Tribunal has fallen into error in holding the appellant/insurance company liable for compensation since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, for which there was no risk cover in the insurance policy. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the insurance company is entitled to exonerate to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. In the case in hand, looking to the material and evidence available on record, it is clear that the insurance company has not pleaded in his written statement before the claims tribunal regarding the fact that the deceased Vyas Chouhan was gratuitous passenger in the vehicle for which there is no risk cover in the insurance policy. No evidence has been produced in this regard. The appellant/insurance 4 company raised this point for the first time before this Court, and it was not raised before the claims Tribunal. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rama KT Barman (died) Thr. LRs vs. M. Mahim Ali & Ors., MANU/SC/1272/2024 : 2024 LiveLaw SC 637 that it is well settled principle of law that the court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of parties and Appellate Court is supposed to decide the issue involved in the suit based on pleading of parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the absence of a pleading before the Claims Tribunal on that point, it cannot be considered in the appeal before this Court. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment. 10.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu