1 2025:CGHC:48524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2068 of 2019 * - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited E - 8, Rico Industrial Area, Sitapura (Rajasthan)., Rajasthan ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Ranjana Gupta Wd/o Late Kishore Gupta Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o High School Road, Nagar Ambikapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Savitri Devi Wd/o Late Srikanth Gupta Aged About 72 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o High School Road, Nagar Ambikapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Rochak Gupta S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 32 Years Occupation Business, R/o House No. 165, Sadar Road, Nagar Ambikapur Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Sushma Gupta Wd/o Late Nageshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 52 Years Occupation Business, R/o House No. 165, Sadar Road, Nagar Ambikapur Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Claimants. For respondents No. 3 & 4/ Driver and Owner : : Mr. Swapnil Keshri, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 22/09/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.24 11:14:26 +0530 2 Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 208/2015 dated 13.08.2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs.33,98,554/- with interest @ 8% per annum on account of death of Ketan Kumar Gupta @ Rahul. 2. Ms. Santoshi Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would argue that the insurance cover- note (Ex.-D/1) placed on record was a forged document. She would submit that a witness namely Prashant Bhomiya was examined by the Insurance Company to prove this fact. She would contend that though the name of insured is mentioned in the register, but it was never issued by the Insurance Company and the said register does not contain seal and signature of the competent authority. She would further contend that the register was missing and a complaint was made in the Police Station. She would submit that as the cover-note (Ex.-D/1) was a forged document, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. She would pray to allow this appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4/Owner and Driver would submit that proper premium was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle and cover-note (Ex.-D/1) was issued. He would contend that a cover-note was issued by the Agent of the Insurance Company namely Sheikh Rashid. He would further submit that if the register was not deposited by the Agent of the Insurance Company, it would be dispute between the Insurance 3 Company and its Agent. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considered the objection raised by the Insurance Company and it was turned down. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Perusal of the records would show that on 18.01.2015, on account of motor accident, Ketan Kumar Gupta @ Rahul sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The offending vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. CG-15-B/9468 was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and a cover-note (Ex.-D/1) was issued. 7. Perusal of the evidence led by the witness of Insurance Company would reveal that name of the insured was present in the register and a cover-note (Ex.-D/1) was issued. The Agent of the Insurance Company namely Sheikh Rashid failed to submit the register in the office of the Insurance Company and, therefore, a complaint was made. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly observed that it was dispute between the Insurance Company and its Agent and when cover-note was issued in favour of the insured, it would be presumed that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. 8. Considering the facts of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award dated 13.08.2019. 9. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti