1 MAC No. 7 of 2022 2025:CGHC:46877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 7 of 2022  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through T.P. Hub Incharge, Division Office Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.), Hero Motor Card Vertical D.O.X 803-A 8th Floor Konnectus Tower- 3 New Delhi, Railway Station Bhawbhuti Mard New Delhi - 110002. ... Appellant versus 1. Belaso Bai Wd/o. Late Madan Ram, Aged About 45 Years; 2. Janki Prasad D/o Late Madan Ram, Aged About 24 Years; 3. Om Prakash S/o Late Madan Ram, Aged About 22 Years; 4. Chholi Bai Wd/o. Late Aagar Say, Aged About 75 Years; All are R/o Village Kharsura Saraipara P.S. Bishrampur Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) …. (Claimants). 5. Yash Kumar S/o Niranjan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Surajpur, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, Bazar District Surajpur (C.G.) ….. (Driver Of The Vehicle). 6. Kanhaiyalal Rajwade S/o Niranjan Rajwade, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kharsura P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.) ….. (Owner Of The Vehicle). ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 10:55:12 +0530 2 MAC No. 7 of 2022 For Appellant :- Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 :- Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 82/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has granted the claimants’ application and awarded compensation to the tune of ₹5,60,050/- along with interest for death of Madan Ram Rajwade, aged about 55 years, who was involved in the work of agriculture, by fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants by fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. He would also submit that vehicle owned by Kanhaiyalal Rajwade was wrongly implicated in 3 MAC No. 7 of 2022 crime in question to recover the compensation from the appellant. He would further submit that vehicle in question was not involved in the accident as the accident was occurred on 22.02.2018 and the FIR (Ex. A-3) was lodged on 16.06.2018, with a delay of four months, and the deceased was the close relative of owner of the vehicle/respondent No.3 herein. He would further submit that in the merg intimation (Ex.A-7) and also in the application for postmortem report (Ex.A-13), there is no mention of involvement of the vehicle in question. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1 . 3. Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and the same is not called for interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 1 AIR 2018 SC 612 4 MAC No. 7 of 2022 5. In the instant case, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that Madan Ram Rajwade died on account of falling from the vehicle and vehicle in question has wrongly implicated in the accident as the FIR was lodged with a delay of after four months. In support of its plea Insurance Company has examined Gyan Toppo (NAW-2). In his (NAW-2) statement, he has only stated that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and Madan Ram Rajwade died on account of falling from the vehicle, which he himself was driving, and died. However, he (NAW-2) is not the eye-witness to the accident and he has not filed any investigation report and even the Officer who investigated the case has not been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. As such, except the self service statement of Gyan Toppo (NAW-2) on behalf of the Insurance Company that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to support the aforesaid plea. Furthermore, against the driver of the vehicle offence under Section 304-A of the IPC FIR (Ex.A-3) was registered and he has been prosecuted for the said offence. Merely, because of delay in lodging the FIR, it cannot be held that the vehicle has falsely been implicated in the accident. In that view of the matter, the decision cited 5 MAC No. 7 of 2022 by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Anil (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 6. In view of the aforesaid observation/discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appellant, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit