1 (MAC No. 173 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:43800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 173 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rahul Complex, 3rd Floor, O. P. Jindal Jagatpur Road, Above Axis Bank, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 13-U.E.-1500) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ranjeeta Yadav W/o Late Nandkumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ku. Natasha Yadav D/o Late Nandkumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ranjeeta Yadav W/o Late Nandkumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Ishan Yadav S/o Late Nandkumar Yadav Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ranjeeta Yadav W/o Late Nandkumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Laxmi Bai Yadav W/o Tejram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.02 10:34:22 +0530 2 (MAC No. 173 of 2023) 5 - Tejram Yadav S/o Shivcharan Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jitendra Sharma S/o Krishnakanth Sharma R/o Ward No. 2, Shiv Shitla Mandir, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 13-U.E.-1500) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents :- None. SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.08.2025 1. The appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Claims Case No.81/2021, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum has been fastened upon the insurance company. 3 (MAC No. 173 of 2023) 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company would submit that deceased – Nand Kumar Yadav was not the third party and therefore, the claim application filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. None for the other side. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The appellant-insurance company in its written statement filed before learned Claims Tribunal did not take a plea that deceased – Nand Kumar Yadav was not the third party and that he had borrowed the offending vehicle from the owner of the vehicle namely, Jitendra Sharma. As such, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that deceased was the third party is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the owner of the offending vehicle - Jitendra Sharma has been examined before the Tribunal, wherein he has clearly stated that he and the deceased used to work together at 4 (MAC No. 173 of 2023) Amar Enterprises medical store, where the deceased was being paid Rs.10,000/- per month. As such, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly not found favoured with the plea taken by the insurance company and has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. 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!