1 (MAC No. 1330 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:43801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1330 of 2022 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin 492010 Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle Honda Dream Yuga No. Cg 04 Kt 6065) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Chandrika Sonkate W/o Late Ishwar Sontake Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Nisha D/o Late Ishwar Sontake Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Samir Sontake S/o Late Ishwar Sontake Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandrika Sontake, R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 4 - Simran Sontake D/o Late Ishwar Sontake Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandrika Sontake, R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 5 - Madan Sontake S/o Runguram Sontake Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.29 18:01:04 +0530 2 (MAC No. 1330 of 2022) 6 - Arun Sontake S/o Madan Sontake Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Father Madan Sontake, R/o Village Ramadabri (Bamburdih), Ward No. 05, P.S. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 7 - Vyasnarayan Sahu S/o Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Achhola, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver-Cum-Owner Of Motorcycle Honda Dream Yuga No. Cg 04 Kt 6065) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellants :- Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents :- None. SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.08 .2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.H-10/2020, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,71,024/- along with 7% interest from the date of claim application has been fastened upon the insurance company. 3 (MAC No. 1330 of 2022) 2. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offending vehicle has wrongly been implanted in the accident whereas it was not involved in the accident, as the FIR was lodged with a delay of 83 days and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and this appeal be allowed. 3. None for the other side. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned trial Court has clearly recorded a finding keeping in view the statements made by two eye witnesses namely, Chandrika Sonteke (AW-01) and Santosh Narang (AW-02) that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and and driver - Vyasnaryana Sahu (respondent No.7) was charge-sheeted for offence under 304A of the IPC. Furthermore, the witness examined by the insurance company namely, Rahul Choudhary, Law Officer (NAW-01) was not the eye witness to the accident and thereby, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to fasten the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the insurance company. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, in my considered opinion, is a correct finding of 4 (MAC No. 1330 of 2022) facts based on the evidence and materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any ground warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!