1 2025:CGHC:11816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 204 of 2025 • Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited Office At-Ward No. 25, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Second Floor, Simran Tower, Pandri Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant/Insurer Versus 1. Hiraman Sahu S/o Late Shri Harilal Sahu Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village- Lakhouli, Police Station- Arang, Tahsil- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) --------- (Claimant) 2. Gopal Sahu S/o Basant Sahu R/o Village Rasni, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) ------------ (Driver/Non-Applicant No. 1) 3. Kumar Gaurav Chandrakar S/o Tularam Chandrakar R/o Village Rasni, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)------ (Owner/Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 10/03/2025 1. The Insurance Company/appellant has challenged the award dated 25.10.2024 passed by the XIVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in MACT No. 181/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim case filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,37,647/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Company/appellant would argue that initially, an F.I.R. was lodged against one Shubham Chandrakar, the driver of the offending vehicle Indica Car bearing registration No. CG 04 JC 3055. She would contend that after three days, an affidavit was filed by the complainant namely, Jagmohan Sahu, who implanted the driver namely Gopal Sahu. She would further argue that a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police in this regard, but no investigation was conducted. It is argued that the Investigating Officer was examined in this regard, but no satisfactory answers were given. She would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/owner of the offending vehicle would submit that due to a mistake, initially, an F.I.R. was lodged against Shubham Chandrakar, later on, it was found that the offending vehicle was being driven by Gopal Sahu, therefore, an affidavit was filed and the name of the driver was modified up to that extent. He would further contend that the Insurance Company failed to produce documentary or oral evidence to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was implanted. He would also contend that the Investigating Officer of the criminal case was examined at length and he categorically stated that Gopal Sahu/respondent No. 2 was the driver of the offending vehicle. He would also submit that no case is made out for interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On 03.02.2018, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 JC 3055, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and 3 negligent manner, dashed the motorbike bearing registration No. TVS X-CG 04 LY 9579, which was being ridden by Hiraman Sahu- claimant/respondent No. 1. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 60 years and he was earning Rs.300 per day. The claimant/injured claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and took a plea that the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company i.e. Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited and the driver had a valid driving license. 6. The Insurance Company in its reply stated that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver Shubham Chandrakar and after a few days, an affidavit was filed and the name of the driver was changed. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, appreciated evidence led by the parties and passed the final award. 7. In the present case, the Insurance Company could not prove the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by Shubham Chandrakar. It is also not proved that the said Shubham Chandrakar did not have a valid driving license on the date of the incident. No investigation or inquiry was conducted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company to prove these facts. The claimant’s witnesses and the Investigating Officer have categorically stated that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by Gopal Sahu and he had a valid driving license. 8. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being driven by Gopal Sahu, which is a finding of fact, I do not find any good ground to interfere with 4 such a finding. The counsel for the appellant has not raised any other ground during the course of the argument. 9. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. In view of the above, all pending applications are also hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti