1 2025:CGHC:39942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1023 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492 010, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1- Kamalnarayan Sinha, S/o. Dukaluram Sinha, Aged About 41 Years, R/o. Ward No.10 Khairjhiti, Police Station Tumgaon, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2- Smt. Rewatibai Sinha, W/o. Kamalnarayan Sinha, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Ward No.10 Khairjhiti, Police Station Tumgaon, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3- Khemraj Sinha, S/o. Kamalnarayan Sinha, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Ward No.10 Khairjhiti, Police Station Tumgaon, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.11 11:11:59 +0530 2 4- Raghubeer Nishad, S/o. Nandkumar Nishad, R/o. Village Lafinkhurd, Police Station Mahasamund, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh…….. (Driver) 5- Veddev Verma, S/o. Chouwaram Verma, R/o. Ward No.26 Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh…….(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.08.2025 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 02.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund whereby an amount of compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- has been awarded to the claimants along- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 3 2. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, would solitarily submit that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated as pleaded in para 17 of the written statement and that has been supported by Rahul Choudhari, Law Officer, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in recording the finding, which is perverse to the record and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Premshankar Yadav, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/insurance company and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The appellant/insurance company has taken a plea that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the claimants in order to recover the amount of compensation and Mr. Rahul Choudhari, Law Officer, has also been examined who has supported the averments. However, in the cross- 4 examination, in para 6, he has clearly stated that he has not filed any investigation report and the learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral & documentary evidence on record has clearly recorded a finding in para 19 of the impugned award relying upon the evidence of eye-witness Pappu Ram Gendre (PW-2) that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident in question due to which the deceased Omraj Sinha died, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/insurance company. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge