1 2025:CGHC:40808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2027 of 2019 1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Shop No. 3, Ii Floor, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Smt. Latabai Bind W/o Hari Narayan Bind, aged about 30 yrs 2. Hari Narayan Bind, S/o Late Balaram Bind, aged about 32 yrs Both are R/o Village Nagpura, Post Jawalpur, Tahsil Balod, Present R/o Koni, P.S. Koni, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) 3. Anurag Kujur S/o K.P. Kujur, Aged About 31 Years 4. Smt. Sharda Kujur W/o K.P. Kujur, Respondent No.3 and 4 are R/o House No. 7/1565 Ring Road No. 2, Panna Nagar, Near Jatiya Talab Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Priyanka Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 13/8/2025 1) This appeal is filed by appellant Insurance Company challenging the award dated 30.9.2019 passed in Claim Case No.173/2018 by which learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal”) allowed SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 claim application of claimants in part, awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- in a death case and fastened liability upon insurance company to indemnify the insured. 2) Brief facts of the case are that claimants-respondent No.1 & 2 herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,80,000/- against the death of their daughter namely Meera Bind in a motor vehicular accident caused by Car bearing registration No.CG-10-5544 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. 3) Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed joint reply to claim application and denied the averments made therein. They pleaded that accident was result of negligence of deceased herself. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective license and therefore, insurance company is liable for compensation. 4) Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply to claim application pleading that accident did not occur from offending vehicle, at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license. 5) Learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim application in part, awarded compensation of 3 Rs.2,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and held the non- applicants, jointly and severally, liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants. 6) Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company would submit that it is a case of false implant of offending vehicle in accident. He contended that immediately after few hours of accident, FIR was lodged in police station specifically mentioning therein that accident was caused by one Ford Car whereas brand name of offending vehicle is a ‘Kwid’ manufactured by Renault Company. Thus, there is difference in brand name of vehicles which creates doubt about involvement of offending vehicle in accident in question. He next contended that appellant in its defence examined Investigating Officer who failed to explain as to on what basis he reached to conclusion that offending vehicle was involved in accident. Hence, finding recorded by Claims Tribunal about alleged involvement of offending vehicle is perverse to the evidence available on record. 7) Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 -claimants vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits that there is no dispute that accident was reported in concerned police station within few hours of accident and during investigation, police found involvement of offending vehicle, accordingly, it was seized and after 4 completion of investigation, charge sheet was also submitted against its driver. 8) Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. 9) As regard first submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, was falsely implanted. Claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 to prove involvement of offending vehicle in accident in question resulting into death of deceased, have placed reliance on FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by Harinarayan Bind (AW-1), father of deceased and not an eyewitness to accident; merg intimation (Ex.P-2), inquest (Ex.P-4), seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and arrest memo (Ex.P-7). From the recitals of F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) it emerges that accident was occurred on 23.12.2017 at 13:15 hrs and FIR is lodged on the same day. It also reflects that at the time of registration of offence neither registration number of vehicle involved in accident nor name of driver was known to anybody and simply it is mentioned that accident was caused by a Ford Car. It is appearing that during investigation,it was found that accident was caused by offending vehicle and accordingly, offending vehicle along with its insurance policy and driving license was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and non-applicant No.1 was arrested on 14.1.2018 vide arrest memo of Ex.P-7. 5 10) Appellant Insurance Company examined Head Constable Rajendra Yadav as NAW3-3, who conducted investigation of crime registered in respect of accident in question. In examination-in-chief this witness categorically stated that he conducted investigation of Crime No.241/2017 registered in connection with accident in question. As per certified copies of documents of criminal case, accident in question was caused by offending vehicle. Insurance Company declared this witness hostile and sought permission to ask leading questions, which was granted. In cross-examination, he admitted that, in FIR it is mentioned that accident was caused by Ford car and its registration number is not mentioned. He stated that from CCTV footage and statement of witnesses, he came to know about registration number of offending vehicle. 11) From the evidence of investigating officer (NAW3-3) it is evident that after lodging FIR, he investigated the matter and found that it is the offending vehicle which was involved in the accident and therefore filed charge sheet against non- applicant No.1 before the concerned Criminal Court and upon which a criminal case has been registered against non- applicant No.1. Even this witness has mentioned about the source of information received relating to offending vehicle i.e. CCTV footage. The Insurance Company though 6 extensively cross-examined the witness could not bring out any major contradiction. There is no reason as to why the this witness should be disbelieved as there is noting on record to show that said witness was bias in conducting investigation. 12) Perusal of impugned award, particularly Para-17 to 25, would show that learned Claims Tribunal assigned cogent and convincing reasons about involvement of vehicle. Appellant Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence to establish that offending vehicle was not involved or roped in the accident. 13) True it is that there is discrepancy in FIR regarding model of offending car. Merely because there is some discrepancy in FIR with respect to model of offending car, it cannot be said that offending vehicle was not involved in accident particularly when after thorough investigation of occurrence the police recorded finding in charge sheet regarding involvement of vehicle in accident. 14) When all above facts and evidence are considered in totality and they conclusively prove that offending vehicle was involved in the accident. For the foregoing discussions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that offending vehicle was involved in the accident that resulted into death of deceased. 15) In view of the above discussions, the argument advanced on 7 behalf of appellant-insurance company of non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident has no merit and the same is repelled. No other ground is raised before this Court. 16) Consequently, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-