1 2025:CGHC:53562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 32 of 2024  Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address, Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Neelima Mishra W/o Late Hari Mishra Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Shivpur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Apoorva Mishra D/o Late Hari Mishra Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Neelima Mishra, R/o Village Shivpur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Paridhi Mishra D/o Late Hari Mishra Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Neelima Mishra, R/o Village Shivpur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Nandkeshwar Navik S/o Shri Shyamlal R/o Village Navankara, P.S. Chandoura, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Tilakdhari S/o Shri Samaylal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Navankara, P.S. Chandoura, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 and 5 : None, though served Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 16:40:28 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 3-11-2025 1) By way of this appeal, Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District – Surajpur in Claim Case No. 64/2021 dated 29.9.2023 whereby Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 8,80,000/- on account of death of Hari Mishra. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 29.9.2019, respondent No. 4 while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-T- 3192 rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased from back side. In the accident, Hari Mishra sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment on 6.10.2019. Claimants, who are widow and minor children of the deceased filed the claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,16,500/- and pleaded that age of the deceased was 48 years and he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the offending vehicle has been falsely implanted to get compensation and FIR was lodged after two years on 25.2.2021. The plea of absence of valid driving license was also taken. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 3) Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and 3 there was delay of two years in lodging of the FIR. He further submits that no explanation was offered by the claimants with regard to the delay caused in lodging of FIR. He prays to set aside the award impugned. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Singh, counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose. He submits that Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) With regard to the issue of registration of FIR after two years, a specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company in its reply but no issue was framed. Insurance Company failed to move application before the Claims Tribunal for framing of additional issue with regard to delayed registration of FIR and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. 7) With regard to absence of valid and effective driving license, Insurance Company failed to lead evidence, therefore this issue was decided against the Insurance Company by the Claims Tribunal. 8) Admittedly, there was delay of about two years in registration of FIR but Insurance Company could not establish the fact that offending vehicle was implanted by the claimants. Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence and 4 considering the arguments raised by the Insurance Company during the course of hearing, passed the award. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a