1 2025:CGHC:57618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1345 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ambedkar Chowk Above Union Bank Baloda Bazar, Disrtict- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. C.G. 04-04- H.M.5870).................(Non-Applicant No.3), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Punautin Bai Dhruv Wd/o Late Manohar Dhruv Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Parasram S/o Late Baratu Dhruv Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Kanti Bai Dhruv W/o Parasram Dhruv Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh......(Claimants), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Koshle S/o Shri Ashok Koshle Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Risda, Post Risda, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. C.G.-04-H.M. 5870).........(Non-Applicant No.1), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ashish Kumar Nayak S/o Akhay Kumar Nayak Aged About 33 Years R/o Prem Prakash Nagar, Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. C.G.-04-H.M.5870)............(Non-Applicant No.2), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 to 5 : None. MAC No. 1346 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Ambedkar Chowk, Above Union Bank Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh...(Insurer Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. 3 C.G.-04-H.M. 5870)..........(Non-Applicant No.3), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Daulat Ram Dhruv S/o Santaram Dhruv Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimant), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanjay Koshle S/o Ahri Ashok Koshle Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Risda, Post Risda, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh....(Driver Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. C.G. 04-H.M. 5870).........(Non-Applicant No.1), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashish Kumar Nayak S/o Akshay Kumar Nayak Aged About 33 Years R/o Prem Prakash Nagar, Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner Of Vehicle Car Bearing No. C.G.-04-H.M. 5870)........... (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 4 26/11/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 13.3.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1345 of 2018 and 1346 of 2018 are insurer’s appeal against the award dated 13.3.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 32/2017. MAC No. 1345/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimants have filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 41,00,000/- for the death of Manohar Dhruv in a road accident involving a car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-HM-5870. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 4 was the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 5 was the owner, and the appellant was the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is alleged that on 12.10.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., respondent No. 4, namely Sanjay Koshle, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed against Daulatram Dhruv and Manohar Dhruv, resulting in Daulatram sustaining fractures in both legs along with other grievous injuries, and Manohar Dhruv dying on the spot. Daulatram was admitted to Balaji Hospital, Raipur, where he remained under treatment for four months and continues to receive medical care. The incident was reported to Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, and Crime No. 403/2015 was registered against respondent No. 4 under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the IPC, and a charge- 5 sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. In his written statement, respondent No. 4 contended that he was ill and on rest from 12.10.2015 to 19.10.2015 and was not on duty, and further asserted that he possessed a valid driving licence valid up to 10.11.2036; he also stated that the vehicle was duly insured from 29.08.2015 to 28.08.2016 and that the insurer is liable to pay compensation, seeking deletion of his name from the claim petition. Respondent No. 5, the owner, denied the occurrence of the accident dated 12.10.2015 but submitted that if any compensation is awarded, the liability rests with the insurer since the vehicle was insured. The appellant–insurance company, in its written statement, denied liability on the ground that the vehicle was driven in violation of policy terms as the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence, and therefore the claim petition against it was liable to be dismissed. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, the Tribunal held the insurance company liable and fastened the liability upon the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that the vehicle in question, i.e., the car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-HM-5870, has been improperly and unlawfully implicated as the offending vehicle said to be involved in the alleged accident. It is urged that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, which creates serious doubt regarding the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle. Counsel further 6 argues that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issue of contributory negligence, which clearly arises from the attending facts and circumstances of the case but has not been considered in its proper perspective. It is also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is highly excessive, arbitrary, and not commensurate with the evidence available on record, and therefore warrants suitable reduction and reassessment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,91,736/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondents No. 2 to 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. After considering the rival submissions and examining the entire material placed on record, it becomes evident that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the well- reasoned findings of the learned Claims Tribunal. The allegations regarding improper implication of the vehicle, delayed FIR, contributory negligence, and absence of a valid licence remain unsupported by any substantive evidence, whereas the Tribunal has duly appreciated the pleadings, documentary records, and 7 oral testimony in a balanced manner while fastening liability upon the insurer. The award passed by the Tribunal reflects a just and proper assessment based on established principles governing motor accident compensation, and no ground is made out to interfere with the same in appellate jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I do not find this to be a fit case warranting interference with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. As the offending vehicle was duly insured, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the compensation, and the Tribunal has rightly imposed the liability upon the insurer. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1346/2018 9. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 9,21,000/- for the injuries sustained in an accident caused by a car bearing registration No. CG-04- HM-5870. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 2 was the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 3 its owner, and the appellant the insurer. The case of the claimant is that on 12.10.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., respondent No. 2, Sanjay Koshle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit Daulatram Dhruv and Manohar Dhruv, resulting in Daulatram sustaining fractures in both legs and other grievous injuries, while 8 Manohar died on the spot. Daulatram was admitted to Balaji Hospital, Raipur, where he remained under treatment for four months, and his treatment is still continuing. The incident was reported at Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, where Crime No. 403/2015 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No. 2, and thereafter a challan was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. In his written statement, respondent No. 2 claimed that from 12.10.2015 to 19.10.2015 he was ill, not on duty, and taking rest; he further asserted that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence valid up to 10.11.2036 and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant from 29.08.2015 to 28.08.2016, making the insurer liable for compensation and warranting deletion of his name from the claim petition. Respondent No. 3 denied the occurrence of the accident dated 12.10.2015 but contended that if any compensation is payable, it is the appellant who is liable, as the vehicle was insured. The appellant, however, in its written statement argued that the vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions because the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and therefore the insurer was not liable and the claim against it was liable to be dismissed. After considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation. 9 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the vehicle in question, namely the car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-HM-5870, has been wrongly and illegally implicated as the offending vehicle involved in the alleged accident, and further contends that the injured claimant, Daulat Ram, is not an eye-witness to the incident. It is argued that the FIR was lodged after considerable delay, which casts serious doubt on the alleged involvement of the said vehicle insured by the appellant company. Counsel further submits that the aspect of contributory negligence, which clearly emerges from the facts and circumstances of the case, has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. In addition, it is urged that the compensation awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the evidence on record, and therefore requires appropriate modification. 11. None for the respondents. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 13. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that no substantive evidence was produced before the learned Claims Tribunal in support of the allegations now raised by the appellant in the present appeal. The Tribunal, after meticulously examining the entire factual matrix of the case, duly considering the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the claimant, and taking into account the course of treatment administered during his 10 hospitalization, has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,33,462/- in a just and proper manner. In these circumstances, I do not find this to be a fit case warranting interference with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. As the offending vehicle was duly insured, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the compensation, and the Tribunal has rightly imposed the liability upon the insurer. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat